283 

A LETTER 

ON  THE 


Anglican 
Church’s  Claims 


REV.  INGRAM  N.  W.  IRVINE,  D.D. 


Canon  of  St.  Nicholas’  Cathedral 

WITH  A 

PREFACE 

BY 

THE  REV.  FR.  DANIEL  I.  ODELL,  B.D. 

Rector  of  the  Church  of  the  Annunciation,  Philadelphia 
AND 

APPENDICES 

BY 

THE  RT.  REV.  GEO.  F.  SEYMOUR,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Bishop  of  Springfield,  111. 

THE  REV.  RANDALL  C.  HALL,  D.D. 

Professor  (Emeritus)  of  Hebrew,  General  Theological  Seminary 

THE  REV.  WM.  J.  SEABURY,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity  and  Law  in  the  General  Theological  Seminary 

AND 

THE  HON.  NICHOLAS  N.  DE  LODYGENSKY 

Imperial  Russian  Consul-General 


ENGLISH  DEPARTMENT 
ST.  NICHOLAS’  CATHEDRAL* 
Madison  Ave.  and  97th  St. 

NEW  YORK 


% 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 


, University  of  Illinois  Library 


A LETTER 


ON  THE 


Anglican  Church’s  Claims 

BY  THE 

REV.  INGRAM  N.  W.  IRVINE.  D.D. 

Canon  of  St.  Nicholas’  Cathedral 


WITH  A 

PREFACE 

BY 

THE  REV.  FR.  DANIEL  I.  ODELL,  B.D.  O O 

Rector  of  the  Church  of  the  Annunciation,  Philadelphia 

AND  

APPENDICES 

BY 

THE  RT.  REV.  GEO.  F.  SEYMOUR,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Bishop  of  Springfield,  111. 

THE  REV.  RANDALL  C.  HALL,  D.D. 

Professor  (Emeritus)  of  Hebrew,  General  Theological  Seminary 

THE  REV.  WM.  J.  SEABURY,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity  and  Law  in  the  General  Theological  Seminary 
AND 

THE  HON.  NICHOLAS  N.  DE  LODYGENSKY 

Imperial  Russian  Consul-General 


ENGLISH  DEPARTMENT 

ST.  NICHOLAS’  CATHEDRAL 

MADISON  AVE.  AND  97th  ST. 

NEW  YORK 


^ Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/letteronanglican00irvi_0 


Ir- 

J.  ■ 


PREFACE. 


T N VIEW  of  the  assembling  of  a council  of  the  Holy 
^ Orthodox  Russian  Church  for  the  recasting  of  its 
internal  ecclesiastical  affairs  during  the  coming  Autumn 
and  the  approaching  Fourth  Lambeth  Conference  of 
Anglican  Bishops  in  1909,  it  would  seem  pre-eminently 
fitting  that  the  letter  of  the  Reverend  Dr.  Irvine,  ‘‘On  the 
Anglican  Church's  Historical  Claims,  Doctrines,  Disci- 
pline, Worship,  etc./'  written  to  his  Grace,  the  Most 
Reverend  Archbishop  Tikhon  of  North  America  and 
Aleutian  Islands,  shortly  after  the  reception  of  Dr.  Irvine 
into  the  Priesthood  of  the  Holy  Orthodox  Catholic  Church, 
should  be  reprinted ; with  the  earnest  hope  that  the 
cordial  relations  hitherto  existing  between  the  two 
Churches  may  be  restored  and,  further,  that  something 
definite  and  explicit  may  be  done  by  the  Bishops  of 
the  respective  Councils  which,  under  the  controlling  guid- 
ance of  the  Holy  Spirit,  will  make  for  righteousness  and 
the  reunion  of  Christendom. 

The  unhappy  position  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Anglican  Communion, 
in  allowing  herself  to  be  constantly  and  continuously 
classified  with  the  Protestant  bodies  which  have  no  His- 
torical Episcopate,  and  scarcely  ever,  as  she  should,  fear- 
lessly asserting  her  Catholic  and  Apostolic  heritage,  has 


4 


naturally  permitted  herself  and  the  whole  Anglican  Com- 
munion to  be  grievously  misunderstood  by  the  Holy  East- 
ern Church.  And  again,  as  Dr.  Irvine  most  clearly  points 
outj  she  has  never  zealously  and  unitedly  ‘'pressed  her 
claims  before  the  four  Eastern  Patriarchates’’  during  the 
past  “three  hundred  years.”  The  English  Church  and 
her  daughter  churches,  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  after  drifting  along  all  these  years,  apparently 
content  with  herself  and  in  the  self-depending  knowledge 
of  her  own  claims  or,  possibly,  in  a spirit  of  indifference 
as  to  what  others  may  think  or  say  of  those  claims,  finds 
herself  to-day  in  the  unique  and  notable  position  where 
she  alone,  amidst  the  entire  religious  world.  Catholic  and 
Protestant,  acknowledges  and  maintains  her  historical 
claim  of  Catholic  heritage  and  Apostolic  continuity.  She 
has  been  unjust  to  herself,  and  her  Episcopate  is  to-day 
receiving  the  due  reward  of  their  own  compromising 
weakness  and  failure  in  not  safeguarding  the  Priesthood 
of  their  own  Church,  which  looks  to  them  for  perpetua- 
tion and  protection. 

In  ordaining  Dr.  Irvine  to  the  Priesthood  of  the  Holy 
Orthodox  Church,  his  Grace,  Archbishop  Tikhon,  acted, 

' as  he  was  morally  and  canonically  bound  to  do,  in  strict 
obedience  to  the  canonical  and  ancient  usage  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church,  and  the  ordination  has  not  been  held  sacri-  • 
legious  nor  discourteous  to  the  Anglican  Church  outside 
of  one  or  more  irresponsible  Church  newspapers  and  some 
individual  ecclesiastics  who  wrote  hastily  and  unfavor- 
ably of  the  action  as  doing  harm  to  the  cordial  relations 
then  obtaining  between  the  Protestant  Episcopal  and  Holy 


5 


Orthodox  Churches.  Even  the  Presiding  Bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  the  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Tuttle, 
in  his  individual  protest  to  the  President  of  the  Holy 
Synod,  seems  to  have  moved  unadvisedly  as  judging  the 
act  of  Archbishop  Tikhon  intrusive  and  tending  to  dis- 
turb ecclesiastical  relations  when,  in  fact,  no  inter-com- 
munion really  existed  at  the  time  or  had  ever  existed. 

The  act  of  Archbishop  Tikhon  in  ordaining  Dr.  Irvine 
has  fearlessly  and  clearly  opened  up  all  questions  of  dif- 
ference between  the  Anglican  and  Holy  Orthodox 
Churches  and  boldly  brings  the  chief  and  leading  issues 
straight  before  the  Bishops  of  the  Lambeth  Conference 
and  of  the  Holy  Orthodox  Russian  Church. 

Have  the  Church  of  England  and  her  daughter  churches, 
including  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  a valid,  lawful  and  unbroken  succes- 
sion of  ministers  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  and  do 
they  explicitly  hold  and  teach  the  Catholic  view  of  Sacra- 
ments and  true  intention  of  making  Catholic  Priests  ? 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  denies,  without  condition, 
the  truth  of  any  such  claims  made  by  the  Anglican 
Church,  but  has  been  irrefutably  and  successfully  an- 
swered in  the  noted  '‘Response  of  the  Archbishops  of 
England  to  the  Apostolic  Letter  of  Pope  Leo  XIII  on 
Anglican  Ordinations,’’  dated  February,  A.  D.  1897,  and 
addressed  to  the  whole  body  of  Bishops  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  Yet  it  has  not  been  followed  up  by  any  united 
organic  action  of  the  entire  Anglican  Church  tending 
toward  effectual  inter-communion,  and  so  long  as  the 
Anglican  Bishops  have  not  collectively  and  officially 


6 


pressed  her  claims  for  recognition  as  ‘'part  of  the  His- 
torical Catholic  Church/’  they  cannot  actively  fault  the 
Holy  Eastern  Church  for  not  having  full  knowledge  of 
her  Catholic  position;  and  until  a conciliar  and  formal 
judgment  and  decision  shall  be  given  upon  the  facts  at 
issue  the  Anglican  and  Holy  Orthodox  Churches  will 
remain  estranged  and  separated. 

The  opportunity  for  mutual  investigation  and  explana- 
tion of  all  differences  between  the  Anglican  and  Holy 
Orthodox  Churches  is  greater  to-day  than  ever,  and  he 
must  appear  blind  who  will  not  see  the  real  bond  of  union 
now  existing  between  the  Churches  made  reasonably  clear 
by  the  opportune  and  friendly  letter  of  Dr.  Irvine  to  Arch- 
bishop Tikhon  on  “the  Anglican  Church’s  Historical 
Claims,”  etc.,  in  which  he  says : 

“I  would  not  do  the  Anglican  Church  a wrong.  I 
would  not  any  more  than  I would  cut  off  this  hand  which 
holds  the  pen  by  which  I communicate  my  thoughts  to 
your  Grace  in  black  and  white,  withhold  one  truth  or  hide 
away  one  merit  of  which  she  glories.  On  the  contrary,  I 
trust  my  very  frankness  may  be  the  cause  of  stirring  up 
a spirit  of  interest  on  the  part  of  the  Holy  Orthodox 
Church  so  that  the  Anglican  claims  may  be  fairly  and 
quickly  weighed  and  that  the  Saviour’s  prayer  so  far  as 
the  Anglican  Church  and  the  Holy  Orthodox  at  least  are 
concerned,  may  be  fulfilled — ‘that  they  all  may  be  one.’  ” 
God  grant  it,  in  His  way  and  time. 

Daniel  I.  Odell. 

Rectory,  Church  of  the  Annunciation, 

Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania. 

Eastertide,  1906. 


TO  THE  READER. 


The  calm  consideration  of  the  points  raised  in  my 
letter  to  His  Grace  Archbishop  Tikhon  and  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  fairness  with  which  they  have  been  pre- 
sented, together  with  the  call  for  the  letter  itself  from 
those  dwelling  in  far  distant  lands  as  well  from  those 
near  by  have  been  the  primary  reasons  for  its  repub- 
lication. 

However,  there  are  other  reasons.  ‘‘Church  Unity”  is 
a necessity.  It  is  a duty.  But  how  can  we  have  it  ? 

The  different  Protestant  bodies  can  easily  unite,  for 
neither  has,  much  less  deems  necessary,  an  Historic  Epis- 
copate. They  can  form  a confederation  at  any  moment 
and  work  in  more  or  less  harmony  on  some  general  prin- 
ciples. 

The  Historical  Churches  in  their  present  divided  state 
find  the  task  very  difficult,  and  for  these  causes : 

1.  The  Roman  Patriarchate’s  monstrous  claims.  Su- 
premacy, infallibility  and  other  unscriptural  and  unhis- 
torical  doctrines  are  absolute  barriers  in  the  way.  Her 
idea  of  unity  is  that  of  submission  to  her  supremacy  full 
and  complete  and  an  acceptance  of  all  her  additions  to  the 
Faith. 

2.  The  individuals  or  Church  which  should  accept  such 
claims  would  deny  the  Faith,  Order  and  Practices  of  the 
Apostolic  Church  down  to  the  end  of  the  eighth  century, 
and  besides  would,  in  accepting  the  Papal  pyramid  of 


8 


errors  founded  on  presumption  and  perversions,  encour- 
age her  in  her  pride  and  pretenses.  At  present  no  part 
of  the  Historical  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  could  unite  with 
Rome  and  be  true  to  the  Saviour’s  teaching  or  that  of  His 
holy  Apostles  and  the  Fathers  of  the  Early  Church. 

The  difference  between  the  Holy  Eastern  Church’s 
method  of  unity  and  that  of  the  Roman  is  that  which  lies 
between  the  meaning  of  the  words  "^"^Co-ordination”  and 
^"^’wt-ordination.” 

The  Holy  Eastern  Church  desires  union  on  an  honor- 
able, historical  basis,  namely:  that  each  National  Church 
should  maintain  her  own  national  Customs,  Ritual  and 
Liturgy,  but  at  the  same  time  confederate  with  the  four 
Ancient  Eastern  Patriarchates  and  the  different  National 
Churches  which  are  in  union  with  them.  She  neither  de- 
sires nor  suggests  any  superiority  over  other  Historical 
Churches.  She  asks  alone  Dogmatic  Unity  and  Ecclesias- 
tical Co-ordination, 

The  Roman  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  demands  “sub- 
ordination.” She  recognizes  no  equal.  She  claims,  notwith- 
standing undoubted,  overwhelming  apostolical  and  his- 
torical evidence  to  the  contrary,  to  be  the  whole  Catholic 
Church.  She  indeed  has  been  the  mother  of  schism  from 
the  first.  She  to-day  is  an  ecclesiastical  maniac  which, 
though  but  a sister  Patriarchate  to  the  four  great  and 
Ancient  Patriarchates  of  the  East,  Jerusalem,  Antioch^ 
Alexandria  and  Constantinople,  three  of  which  antedate 
her  in  existence,  is  subject  to  the  hallucination  that  she 
is  their  mother.  She  hides  away  the  truth  with  the 
shrewdness  of  those  who  have  a disordered  brain,  viz., 


'<y 


that  St.  Paul  had  as  much  to  do^  if  not  far  more,  with  her 
foundation  than  St.  Peter ; and  that  in  no  way,  therefore, 
can  she  set  up  claims  of  superiority  over  Churches  planted 
by  him  and  other  Apostles,  and  surely  not  over  that 
Patriarchate  of  Jerusalem  over  which  presided  no  less  a 
saint  than  St.  James  our  Blessed  Lord's  brother  after  the 
flesh. 

But  while  I speak  thus  in  reference  to  the  Roman 
Church  or  fifth  Patriarchate,  I am  only  criticising  her  pre- 
tensions— pretensions  kept  alive  by  an  Italian  Pope  and 
an  Italian  College  of  Cardinals,  men  who  thrive  on  the 
credulity  of  the  deceived  and  revel  in  the  wealth  which 
the  pious  of  foreign  lands  pour  into  the  Vatican  Treasury, 
while  their  own  children  are  too  often  supported  in  the 
Almshouses  of  the  several  States  and  Kingdoms. 

I am  not  criticising  her  priesthood  or  her  children. 
I am  dealing  with  principles  and  not  men.  Her  clergy,  so 
far  as  the  British  Empire  and  the  United  States  are  con- 
cerned, have  no  superiors.  They  are  as  a class  magnifi- 
cent men,  noble,  selfsacrificing  and  pious.  They,  too,  are 
broadminded,  abreast  with  the  age  in  learning,  and  purely 
democratic  in  their  ways.  If  the  Italian  curia  were 
not  so  perfect  a system  as  it  is,  if  it  were  not  so  terrible 
in  its  methods  of  crushing,  we  could  well  look  for  signs 
of  unity  in  the  Anglo-American  Roman  Church,  but  at 
present,  under  the  guise  of  love  for  the  clergy  and  the 
faithful,  Italy  holds  them  as  in  a vise  by  means  of  Vicars 
Apostolic,  etc. 

There  remain,  therefore,  but  those  four  Ancient  Patri- 
archates, the  Church  of  Russia,  those  other  great  Ortho- 


10 


dox  Churches  confederate  with  them  and  that  Historical 
Church  known  as  the  Anglican,  which  can  at  present 
fulfil  our  Lord’s  prayer  by  entering  into  such  a state  of 
confederation  as  will  in  no  way  deprive  either  of  national 
freedom  and  independence,  yet  cement  them  one  and  all 
into  Dogmatic  Union,  The  Confederation  of  the  Holy 
Eastern  Church  has  already  this  union.  The  settlement 
now  must  be  between  those  Churches  of  the  East  and  the 
Anglican  Communion.  It  ought  to  take  place  without 
delay. 

I take  issue  with  all  of  those  of  the  Anglican  Church 
who  speak  of  themselves  as  “being  in  the  providence  of 
God  in  the  Western  Patriarchate.”  (They  are  an  uncon- 
scious Romanizing  party.)  That  Patriarchate  never  as  an 
universally  acknowledged  fact  extended  farther  north 
than  the  city  of  Milan.  The  Ambrosian  Liturgy  which 
is  sung  in  the  Cathedral  of  St.  Ambrose,  Milan,  once  a 
year  is  a witness  to  this  fact.  But  granting  Rome  the 
whole  of  Italy,  all  beyond  that  was  procured  by  encroach- 
ment on  account  of  the  political  knavery  of  mediaeval 
kings  and  other  weak  creatures  and  the  ecclesiastical 
pride  of  popes,  based  upon  the  distorted  language  of  the 
Church  Fathers  in  an  age  which  had  no  means  of  proper 
investigation  and  criticism. 

The  Anglican  Church  is  Eastern  in  her  origin,  Eastern 
in  her  Liturgical  foundation,  Eastern  in  her  appeal  to 
antiquity  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  in  the  sixteenth 
century.  She  could  well  to-day  be  a Patriarchate  of  her 
own,  making  herself  the  seventh — ^Russia  being  the  sixth. 
Why  not? 


II 


Careful  consideration  will  prove  that  already  there  is 
almost  Dogmatic  Union  between  the  Holy  Eastern  and 
Anglican  Churches.  All  that  is  necessary  to  make  it  ap- 
parent is  for  both  great  ancient  divisions  of  Christendom 
to  realize  the  awful  responsibility  resting  upon  the  shoul- 
ders of  each  to  hasten  God’s  Kingdom  and  fulfil  Christ’s 
prayer  ‘'that  they  all  may  be  one.”  The  Anglican  Church 
will  surely  admit  that  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  and 
on  subsequent  occasions  she  had  not  so  much  regard  for 
the  way  of  expressing  herself  dogmatically  so  as  to  keep 
in  touch  with  the  East  as  she  had  to  appease  ultra 
Protestants. 

You  will  say  that  there  is  much  more  than  this.  Let  me 
tell  you  that  there  is  not.  I will  give  you  a proof  of  my 
words. 

I,  personally,  a student  trained  in  the  most  distinguished 
Theological  Seminary  of  the  Anglican  Church,  find  that 
as  I had  been  taught  by  Anglican  Professors  hold  the 
actual  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Eastern  Church.  I never  as 
an  Anglican  Student  or  Priest  shaded  those  views  with 
either  Roman  or  Protestant  colors.  I had  ever  kept  close 
to  the  line  of  doctrine  as  taught  me  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Morgan  Dix,  in  Trinity  Church,  New  York  City,  as  a 
boy,  and  in  the  General  Theological  Seminary  as  a stu- 
dent. To  me,  who  from  childhood  was  an  Anglican  and 
who  now  is  a son  of  the  Holy  Eastern  Church  I see  no 
irreconcilable  difference  between  the  actual  doctrines  of 
both  Churches.  Two  authorized  committees  composed  of 
a few  frank  men  from  each  side  could  draw  up  articles 
in  a few  days  on  the  basis  of  which  the  Anglican  Church 


12 


in  her  Convocations  and  Conventions  and  the  Holy  East- 
ern Church  in  her  Synods  and  Councils  could  come  to 
a very  clear  understanding,  and  in  the  providence  of  God 
in  a short  time  confederate  with  one  another. 

I consider,  therefore,  my  own  Confession  the  best  ex- 
planation of  the  Anglican  Prayer  Book.  ‘‘Why,  then,’’ 
you  ask,  “did  you  leave  the  Anglican  Church  My  an- 
swer is  because : First,  the  Anglican  Church  is  not  the  true 
platform  of  unity.  She  is  too  politi^l  and  diplomatic, 
always  compromising  for  expediency  and  shading  like  a 
chameleon  to  attract  each  Protestant  Sect. 

Second,  because  the  Anglican  Church  while  she  teaches 
the  true  Faith  as  to  the  Creed  and  Sacraments  still  per- 
mits the  objectionable  words  to  remain  in  the  Nicene 
Creed,  Liturgy  and  Articles. 

Third.  Because  she  allows  her  Bishops  in  some  respects 
to  be  more  papal  than  the  Pope  of  Rome  and  gives  to 
her  laymen  the  casting  vote  in  Doctrine,  Discipline  and 
Worship. 

Fourth.  Because  I can  do  more  good  for  Jesus  Christ 
according  to  the  dictates  of  my  conscience,  and  for  the 
Unity  of  Christendom  in  the  Holy  Eastern  Church  than 
in  the  Protestant  Episcopal.  Yet  in  saying  all  of  this  I 
speak  in  the  frankness  of  love  for  my  Anglican  brethren. 

Fifth.  Because  the  Holy  Eastern  Church  says  just 
what  she  means ; and  means  what  she  says. 

Sixth.  Because  all  of  her  Priests  and  children  have 
but  one  mode  of  conducting  worship  and  believe  exactly 
in  one  interpretation  of  the  Sacraments. 

Seventh.  Because  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  on  the  morning 


13 


of  Whitsunday,  1905,  in  St.  Mary's  Church,  Philadelphia, 
of  which  the  noble  Rev.  A.  J.  Arnold,  M.A.,  is  Rector,  in 
response  to  my  soul  inquiry,  ‘'Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have 
me  to  do?"  commanded  me  in  an  irresistible  way,  “Go  and 
work  for  the  Holy  Eastern  Church."  And  I was  obedient 
unto  the  voice. 

This  is  my  answer. 

If,  therefore,  a catholic-minded  Rector  and  catholic- 
minded  Professors  taught  me  “the  Faith  once  for  all  de- 
livered to  the  saints,"  in  the  Anglican  Church — and  I have 
never  been  accused  of  heresy — there  is,  so  far  as  my  in- 
dividual self  is  concerned,  dogmatic  union  between  the 
Eastern  and  the  Anglican  Churches. 

The  noble  attempts  on  the  part  of  a few  faithful  and 
Christ-obedient  men  for  the  last  fifty  years  to  bring 
about  a reunion  between  the  Holy  Eastern  Church  and 
the  Anglican  have  been  met  with  too  much  indifference. 
It  is  only  now  that  since  something  has  happened  as  the 
result  of  unhealed  schisms  a hue  and  cry  has  been  raised 
on  the  part  of  some,  who  by  raising  it  have  only  magnified 
the  guilt  of  their  spiritual  fathers  for  not  having  brought 
around  such  an  intercommunion  as  would  have  prevented 
the  necessity  of  such  an  act,  that  this  lack  of  union  is 
appalling  in  its  consequences. 

The  Almighty  has  awful  and  signal  ways  of  rebuking 
those  who  are  indifferent  to  His  Only  Begotten  Son's 
teaching.  Let  us,  then,  wake  up  to  a sense  of  our  duty. 
Let  us  forget  men  and  consider  principles.  The  very 
rebuke  of  God  speaks  of  the  nearness  of  His  Presence  and 
the  severity  of  the  chastisement  His  great  love  for  His 


14 


Holy  Church  that  she  might  see  the  bad  consequences  of 
schism.  Thus  God  spoke  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  when  I was  received  into  the  Holy  Eastern 
Priesthood. 

To  be  still  more  fair  and  to  show  the  magnificent  love 
and  liberality  of  the  Russian  Holy  Orthodox  Church  in 
the  United  States,  as  impressed  by  her  Chief  Prelate, 
Archbishop  Tikhon,  I have,  as  a Priest  of  that  Church, 
invited  some  of  the  grandest  and  most  trustworthy  char- 
acters in  the  Anglican  Priesthood  to  speak  for  their 
Church.  I had  nothing  to  fear  in  doing  this.  Truth  can 
never  suffer  by  being  preached.  All  shades  of  true 
churchly  opinion  in  the  Anglican  Church  are  represented 
by  the  writers.  Western  Catholicity  as  taught  in  Racine 
College  in  the  days  of  the  great  De  Koven  and  in  Nashotah 
Seminary  is  borne  witness  to  by  that  broadminded, 
learned,  brave  and  holy  priest,  the  Rev.  Fr.  Daniel  I. 
Odell,  B.D.,  Rector  of  the  Church  of  the  Annunciation, 
Philadelphia,  who  has  been  kind  enough  to  write  the 
Preface  to  my  letter.  That  spiritual  father  of  many  Bish- 
ops, the  Rt.  Rev.  Geo.  F.  Seymour,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Bishop 
of  Springfield,  111.,  who  for  years  was  the  honored  and 
great  Professor  of  History  in  the  General  Theological 
Seminary  and  also  the  Dean  of  that  Institution,  and  who 
to-day  in  his  declining  years  is  the  noblest  witness  of 
Anglican  Catholicity  in  the  Episcopate  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  has  given  an  article  on  Henry  VIII. 
and  the  Church  of  England.  The  Rev.  Randall  C.  Hall, 
D.D.,  Professor  Emeritus  of  Hebrew  in  the  same  Institu- 
tion, who  with  Bishop  Seymour  stood  for  Catholic  Doc- 


15 


trine,  Discipline  and  Worship  as  brother  Professors,  a 
man  to  whom  all  of  us  who  have  had  the  honor  of  studying 
under,  look  back  with  love  and  veneration,  has  furnished 
me  with  a concise  article  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacra- 
ments as  taught  by  the  Anglican  Church,  while  the 
Rev.  William  J.  Seabury,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Canon  Law 
in  the  General  Theological  Seminary,  has  written  on 
Anglican  Jurisdiction,  etc.  No  name  could  be  more 
felicitous  in  the  consideration  of  reunion  than  that  of 
Dr.  Seabury,  he  being  the  great-grandson  of  the  first 
Bishop  of  the  United  States,  the  Rt.  Rev.  Samuel 
Seabury,  D.D.  The  same  catholic  and  conservative 
spirit,  coupled  with  a loving  heart  and  great  learning, 
which  Bishop  Seabury  and  the  succession  of  Seaburys  in 
the  priestly  line  have  possessed,  are  the  inheritance  also 
of  the  writer  of  this  article  on  jurisdiction.  (The  short- 
ness of  time  before  publication  on  my  part  and  the  '^un- 
usual press  of  duty  at  this  particular  time’’  on  the  part  of 
the  Rev.  Morgan  Dix,  D.D.,  D.C.L.,  the  great  and  revered 
Rector  of  Trinity  Parish,  New  York,  rendered  it  impos- 
sible for  him  to  write  on  a special  subject.  His  article 
would  have  been  read  with  interest.  At  some  future  time 
we  may  have  it.) 

I feel  very  gratified  that  I am  permitted  to  copy  from 
the  New  York  Tribune  of  June  2 a letter  written  to  the 
editor  of  the  same,  under  the  caption  ‘'Suggestions  Look- 
ing Toward  a Reunion,”  by  the  Hon.  N.  N.  De  Lodygen- 
sky.  Imperial  Russian  Consul  General  in  New  York  City. 
The  writer  of  this  letter  has  greatly  at  heart  “Reunion.” 
There  is  no  man,  as  a layman,  who  has  a wider  and  more 


i6 


thorough  knowledge  of  historical  and  doctrinal  subjects 
bearing  upon  this  point  and  in  fact  upon  the  whole  range 
of  topics  akin  to  reunion.  Many  of  us  of  the  clergy  could 
learn  at  his  feet.  His  humble  and  loving  spirit  has  en- 
deared him  to  all  who  have  met  him,  while  his  warm  and 
gentlemanly  manner  of  approach  is  a welcome  in  itself  to 
those  who  visit  St.  Nicholas’  Cathedral,  where  he  serves 
as  Senior  Warden. 

I have  had  these  articles  bound-  up  with  my  letter,  so 
that  the  Holy  Eastern  Prelates  may  hear  from  one  of 
their  own  sons  as  well  as  from  the  honored  sons  of  the 
Anglican  Church  the  whole  truth  in  reference  to  her 
historical  status  and  that  also  the  Prelates  of  the  Anglican 
Church  may  feel  it  a duty  to  press  their  claims  toward  the 
obvious  conclusion,  viz. : that  of  intercommunion. 

All  else  in  this  matter  I must  humbly  leave  to  God,  the 
Holy  Ghost,  excepting  it  be  that  of  holding  my  pen  ever 
in  readiness  to  write  for  that  for  which  the  Saviour  so  ear- 
nestly prayed : ‘‘That  they  all  may  be  one  as  Thou,  Father, 
art  in  Me  and  I in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  Us ; 
that  the  world  may  believe  that  Thou  hast  sent  Me.” — 
St.  John  xvii.  21. 

For  any  one  who  may  desire  to  read  up  on  the  steps 
taken  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  toward  inter- 
communion with  the  East  through  the  Russian  Church  he 
will  find  the  Reports,  etc.,  in  the  Journals  of  the  General 
Conventions  (Protestant  Episcopal  Church)  of  1862, 
1865,  1868,  1871,  1874,  1877,  1880  and  the  personal  re- 
port of  the  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Grafton  in  the  Journal  of  1903. 
There  is  also  very  much  interesting  matter  on  the  subject 


17 


of  union  to  be  found  in  what  is  known  as  the  Papers  of 
the  Russo-Greek  Committee.  But  it  seems  to  me  that 
there  has  been  more  of  the  feeling  of  the  pulse  of  the  Holy 
Eastern  Church  on  Doctrine  than  the  positive,  outspoken 
request  to  the  Russian  Holy  Synod,  the  Patriarchs  and 
the  Metropolitans  that  a committee  be  appointed  on  the 
part  of  the  Holy  Eastern  Church  with  power  to  act. 
Now  that  the  Russian  Church  is  to  have  a Council  and  to 
elect,  it  is  hoped,  a Patriarch,  a better  opportunity  will 
be  offered  for  both  her  and  other  Churches  confederate 
with  her  to  hear  the  Anglican  appeal.  It  is  therefore  up 
to  the  Anglican  Bishops. 

I have  compiled  a work  for  the  use  of  the  laity  in  which 
is  reprinted  the  Russian  Holy  Orthodox  Catechism  on  the 
Creed  by  the  Metropolitan  Philaret  and  also  an  explana- 
tion of  her  services  and  vestments,  by  Archpriest  Smir- 
noff, etc.  They  may  be  helpful  to  the  clergy  as  well  as 
to  the  laity  who  may  not  have  access  to  such  fundamental 
principles  tending  toward  unity. 

Another  work  which  will  tend  toward  bringing  about 
a better  understanding  is  the  new  version  of  the  Russian 
(Holy  Eastern)  Liturgy  and  other  offices  just  translated 
and  now  being  printed.  It  will  appear  in  form  and  dress 
similar  to  that  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  excepting  that  it  will  have 
notes  and  illustrations.  The  work  has  been  under  the 
watchful  eye  of  the  Very  Rev.  A.  A.  Hotovitzky  and  its 
real  merits  as  a valuable  Liturgical  work  as  well  as  a 
witness  in  the  English  language  to  '‘the  Faith  once  for  all 
delivered  to  the  Saints’’  must  be  ascribed  to  his  painstak- 


i8 


ing  and  interest,  both  as  a Liturgical  Scholar  and  The- 
ologian. 

At  present  the  Liturgy  is  said  on  appointed  week  days 
in  English  and  the  Vespers  regularly  on  Sunday  nights. 
When  the  translation  of  all  the  Services  in  a handy 
form  appears  it  will  be  most  helpful  to  English  worshipers 
and  be  of  great  service  to  the  American  born  members  of 
the  Holy  Orthodox  Faith. 

I.  N.  W.  I. 

Pentecost,  1906. 


A Letter  on  The  Anglican 
Church's  Historical  Claims, 
Doctrine,  Discipline,  Wor- 
ship, etc. 

/O  ^ 

To  the  Most  Reverend  Tikhon,  D.D. 

Archbishop  of  North  America  and  the  Aleutian  Islands 

Your  Grace: 

Now  that  much  of  the  excitement  is  over;  and  those 
who  have  written  bitter,  foolish  and  untruthful  state- 
ments in  reference  to  my  reception  into  the  Holy  Ortho- 
dox Church  and  Ordination  to  her  Priesthood  have 
found  but  little  sympathy  from  respectable  people  or 
the  great  conservative  portion  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  it  may  be  just  as  well  for  me  to  speak, 
tenderly  yet  honestly,  concerning  the  Anglican  Church  in 
general  and  her  daughter  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  particular. 

My  object  for  doing  this  is  three  fold,  viz. : 

First:  I know  that  your  Grace  is  a warm  advocate  of 
the  unity  of  Christendom,  and  that  in  your  heart  you 


20 


have  great  respect  for  the  Anglican  Church,  her  Bishops, 
Clergy  in  general  and  Laity. 

Second : I am  aware  of  the  great  pain  it  has  given  you 
that  men  of  narrow  views,  of  uncertain  respectability, 
'Vise  in’’  their  "own  conceits,”  who  have  had  at  their 
command  Church  weekly  papers,  have  poured  out  vitu- 
peration and  made  unbecoming  assaults  not  knowing  that 
you  were  acting  within  the  provisions  of  your  own  Canon- 
ical Law.  Their  ignorance  of  the  Russian  Orthodox 
Church  in  particular,  and  the  Holy  Eastern  Church,  ex- 
cepting in  a general  way,  may  be  an  excuse  for  misunder- 
standing your  Grace’s  acts,  but  there  is  no  palliation 
which  can  be  offered  for  their  vulgar  attacks  upon  you 
and  the  Russian  Church,  and,  in  fact,  the  entire  Holy 
Orthodox  Church.  Indeed  these  men  have  become  the 
laughing  stock  of  right  thinking  people  for  they  have 
claimed  national  jurisdiction  for  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church 
forgetting  that  the  same  argument  would  wipe  out  the 
millions  of  the  Protestant  sects  which  have  emigrated 
to  the  United  States,  as  well  as  those  of  the  different  na- 
tionalities who  make  up  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in 
this  Country. 

The  United  States  happens  to  be  one  country  where  no 
church  is  recognized,  however  numerically  great,  or  influ- 
ential, as  having  exclusive  national  jurisdiction.  This 
Government  recognizes  no  Established  Religion.  Her 
Chaplains  in  Congress  are  elected  from  no  special  Church 
or  Sect.  The  second  paragraph  of  the  "Declaration  of 
(the  United  States’)  Independence”  begins  this  wise: — 


21 


‘‘We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self  evident,  that  all  men 
are  created  equal ; that  they,  are  endowed  by  their  Crea- 
tor with  certain  inalienable  rights;  that  among  these  are 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,’’  etc. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  recognized  this  reli- 
gious equality,  for  in  her  Preface  to  her  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  page  VI,  she  plainly  says  :“When  in  the  course  of 
Divine  Providence,  these  American  States  became  inde- 
pendent with  respect  to  civil  Government,  their  ecclesi- 
astical independence  was  necessarily  included,  and  the 
different  religious  denominations  of  Christians  in  these 
States  were  left  at  full  and  equal  liberty  to  model  and 
organize  their  respective  Churches  and  forms  of  worship, 
and  discipline,  in  such  manner  as  they  might  judge  most 
convenient  for  their  future  prosperity,  consistently  with 
the  constitution  and  laws  of  this  country.” 

Each  emigrant  to  the  United  States  is  entitled  to  his 
religious  views,  and  the  State  wherein  he  makes  his  home, 
though  he  be  not  as  yet  a citizen,  will  protect  him  from 
molestation  in  his  house  of  worship,  and  this  even  goes 
so  far  as  to  a worship  of  another  than  Almighty  God 
so  long  as  his  cult  is  not  contrary  to  the  Laws  of  the 
State,  or  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  In  fact, 
the  United  States  is  the  one  field  in  God's  universe  where 
all  creeds  and  parties  can  look  each  other  in  the  face; 
where  there  need  be  no  jealousies  excepting  those  of  pro- 
voking one  another  to  good  works;  where  the  Unity  of 
Christendom  can  be  best  promoted;  and  where  the  His- 
torical Churches  of  Christendom  should  put  forth  their 
best  efforts  and  unmistakably  set  forth  their  teachings  and 


22 


proclaim  their  creed  so  that  the  gathering  nations  on  this 
magnificent  Civil  Platform  may  have  an  opportunity  to 
know  the  reason  for  the  sad  schisms ; and  the  true  lovers 
of  Christ  and  His  One  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church,  however  now  divided,  may  strive  by  all  that  is 
within  their  power  in  the  spirit  of  love  and  truth  on  one 
common  missionary  field  to  fulfill  our  Blessed  Lord’s 
Words  ‘'that  they  all  may  be  one.” 

Third:  The  Anglican  Church,  and  of  late  a repre- 

sentative of  her  American  daughter,  in  much  earnestness 
having  made  overtures  to  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church 
to  consider  her  claims  to  recognition  as  an  integral  por- 
tion of  the  Apostolic  Church,  it  may  be  no  harm  for  one 
who  has  been  born  in  that  faith  and  has  well  nigh  thirty 
years  possessed  her  Holy  Orders  of  Priesthood  to  touch 
upon  her  Peculiarities,  Claims  and  Doctrinal  aspects  as 
well  as  Ritual.  I believe  a study  of  her  internal  structure 
and  the  causes  of  her  influence,  etc.,  may  help  toward  un- 
derstanding her  the  better.  I know  how  ready  and  will- 
ing you  will  be  to  help  the  good  feeling  to  exist  which 
may  pave  the  way  for  unity.  Yet  I realize  the  fact  that, 
and  therefore  I write,  simply  her  claim  that  she  has  a 
valid  ministry  is  not  sufficient  to  bring  about  unity.  The 
Roman  Church  has  a valid  Priesthood,  but  there  is  still 
no  unity  between  her  and  the  Holy  Orthodox  Catholic 
Church.  Doctrine,  Discipline,  and  Worship  may  one,  or 
all  come  in  the  way  of  preventing  true  unity.  Even  if 
the  Anglican  Ministry  were  recognized  to-morrow  there 
would  be  a long  distance  between  both  Churches  so  far 
as  perfect  Doctrinal  harmony  was  concerned.  It  may 


23 


be  in  the  providence  of  God,  and  I firmly  believe  it,  that 
my  reception  into  the  Holy  Orthodox  Church  and  Ordi- 
nation in  obedience  to  the  canonical  usage  of  the  Eastern 
Church  will  do  more  toward  hastening  reunion  than  im- 
pairing it.  If  indeed  pride  on  the  part  of  some  Anglicans 
has  been  wounded,  it  shows  that  their  spirit  of  Christian 
Love  has  been  less  dominant  than  a desire  for  recogni- 
tion of  Ministerial  Orders.  Indeed,  as  I have  said  on 
another  occasion,  ^‘they  have  mistaken  the  ho^itahty  and 
couTtes^of  the  Russian  Church  Authorities  in  Russia  for 
recognition  of  their  ministry;’"  and,  the  fact  that  equal 
courtesy  has  been  extended,  in  some  quarters,  to  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Russian  Church  by  the  Authorities  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  and  accepted,  has  been 
interpreted  as  an  acknowledgment  of  a general  under- 
standing on  doctrinal  points  between  the  two  churches  as 
to  all  matters  in  controversy.  Herein  lies,  perhaps,  the 
ground  work  for  criticisms.  It  is  well  that  at  least  this 
superfluous  idea  of  union  has  been  swept  away. 

Now  that  there  is  an  understanding  that  courtesy  on 
one  side  or  the  other  is  not  unity,  let  us  begin  over  again, 
and  still  be  courteous,  and,  above  all,  filled  with  love. 

In  the  course  of  thought  which  I am  now  about  to  take 
I beg  of  your  Grace  to  consider  that  I am  going  to  follow 
a method  of  my  own  in  the  treatment  of  the  subject  be- 
fore me.  I mean  to  emphasize  certain  points  and  there- 
fore, by  almost  displacing  them  from  the  order  in  which 
another  would  smoothly  put  and  write  them,  I will  gain 
the  object  which  I,  at  least,  have  in  my  own  mind,  and 
which  is  very  dear  to  my  heart,  viz. : to  give  to  the  Angli- 


24 


can  Church  all  honest  credit  and  to  help  the  Holy  Or- 
thodox Church  to  see  her  in  the  light  of  one  who,  in  love, 
is  honestly  pleading  her  cause  though  in  no  way  hiding 
some  of  her  faults. 

I am  aware  that  around  my  head  the  fiercest  battles 
and  storms  have  raged  and  that  your  Grace,  who  has 
felt  that  God’s  will  was  to  be  considered  rather  than  the 
fleeting  praises  of  men,  has  been  assailed  unmercifully 
for  my  sake.  But  these  things  have  come  out  of  it  all, 
viz.:  the  grandeur  of  the  Russian  Gentleman  and  the 
Christian  forbearance  of  the  Holy  Orthodox  Church’s 
Chief  Prelate.  Americans,  who  are  quick  to  perceive  all 
things,  have  been  persuaded  that  the  Russian  Christian 
Gentleman  and  the  Holy  Orthodox  Faith  are  some  objects 
worthy  of  supreme  respect  and  study.  Far  and  wide  your 
Grace’s  act  has  been  commended.  The  millions  of  citi- 
zens who  have  formerly  shuddered  at  Protestant  Episco- 
pal injustice  toward  me  though  they  know  you  not,  say: 
‘‘Archbishop  Tikhon  must  be  a noble  man.”  There  is  a 
great  under  current  of  respect  flowing  on  with  a mighty 
force  which,  like  every  secret  power  that  is  good,  will 
produce  in  time  God-given  results.  little  leaven 

leaveneth  the  whole  lump'' — Gal.  v.  9. 

And  now  to  my  subject. 

THE  CAUSES  OF  ANGLICAN  INFLUENCE. 

An  Eastern  mind  may  feel  somewhat  surprised  that  a 
body  of  Christians  only  consisting,  all  told,  of  about 
thirty  millions  should  have  such  wide  influence  in  the 
world.  The  Anglican  Church,  to-day,  is  not  as  large, 


25 


comparatively  speaking,  as  some  of  the  ultra-Protestant 
sects  which  have  sprung  into  existence  since  the  Reforma- 
tion in  England,  or  the  Ecclesiastical  Revolution  in 
Europe.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  has  only  about  808,000  members,  yet  the  popu- 
lation of  this  country  is  about  84,000,000. 

You  will  observe  that  I speak  of  the  religious  upheaval 
in  England  in  the  sixteenth  century  as  a “Reformation'' 
and  that  which  took  place  on  the  Continent  of  Europe  as 
a “Revolution."  My  reason  for  so  speaking  is  that  I 
may  deal  in  a most  honest  way  with  the  Anglican 
Church  and  give  her  side,  though  briefly,  of  the  war  which 
she  has  had  to  wage  with  the  Roman  Church, — a side 
which  Rome  has  always  overclouded  with  misrepresenta- 
tion arising  either  from  prejudice  or  ignorance. 

There  is  a fundamental  cause  for  Anglican  aggression 
and  influence.  The  British  kingdom  is  composed  of  four 
separate  nations,  viz. : the  English  or  Anglo-Saxon,  the 
Irish,  the  Scotch  and  the  Welsh  or  old  British.^  These 
nations  have  intermarried  more  or  less.  Taken  as  sep- 
arate nations  or  as  a body  politic  they  possess  more 
largely  than  any  other  people  the  wide-awake  elements 
which  prompt  progress  in  things  spiritual  as  well  as  those 
which  are  temporal.  Wherever  the  British  flag  floats 
there,  standing  side  by  side,  in  her  Army  and  Navy,  in 
her  Established  Church  or  in  her  business  life,  are  men 

^Note.  It  is  thought  that  the  Irish  and  Highland  Scotch  were 
originally  the  same  people.  The  Gaelic  spoken  by  the  Scotch 
Highlander  is  the  same  as  Erse  spoken  by  the  Irish.  The  Piets 
were  Celts  and  were  akin  to  the  Welsh  rather  than  to  the  Gael. 
The  Students’  Hume’s  History  of  England,  page  17. 


26 


who  have  running  in  their  veins  strains  of  English,  Irish, 
and  Scotch,  or  Welsh  blood. 

These  different  nations  have  a preponderating  numeri- 
cal strength  in  the  United  States  over  other  nations  of  the 
globe  coming  to  her  shores.  It  would  seem,  too,  that 
though  the  United  States  may  be  justly  called  'The 
American  Nation,’’  and  while  containing  largely  peoples 
from  all  over  the  earth,  yet  the  historian  Green  rightly 
speaks  of  her  as  "The  Greater  England”  for,  indeed,  the 
individual  characteristics  of  each  of  the  four  nations 
which  make  up  the  British  kingdom  may  be  found  re- 
markably apparent  in  American-born  citizens.  This  ac- 
counts for  the  striking  intellectual,  civil,  business  and 
religious  progress  of  the  United  States.  And  it  must 
be  noted  also  that  all  languages  or  tongues  become  dead, 
as  it  were,  in  an  incredibly  short  time  after  foreigners 
have  come  to  the  United  States,  particularly  so,  if  those 
who  speak  other  than  English  mix  with  those  who  alone 
use  it ; while  sons  of  different  nationalities  in  a few  years 
— five  or  more — become  enthusiastic  citizens  of  a nation 
Anglo-Saxon  and  Celtic  in  her  origin  and  institutions. 
If  we  but  dwell  a little  on  this  last  point  we  must  confess 
that  there  is  something  impregnating  and  magnetic  in  the 
influence  of  the  fourfold  national  combination  to  which 
we  have  referred. 

Now  there  have  been  two  great  instruments  in  the 
hands  of  the  British  kingdom  which  have,  more  than  her 
temporal  strength,  helped  to  influence  the  western  world 
and  the  peoples  of  the  East  with  whom  she  has  come  in 
contact.  She  has  two  sublime,  religious  classics — the 


27 


English  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  the  English  Bible. 
The  prefaces^  of  both  books  are  worth  reading.  Indeed 
without  the  aid  of  any  other  book  of  explanation  or  com- 
mentary the  Book  of  Commn  Prayer  to  the  English 
speaking  world  has  become  a companion  volume  to  the 
Bible.  Great  Britain  is  pre-eminently  a Christian  gov- 
ernment, and  the  four  nations  which  are  her  central  forces 
vie  with  each  other  in  Christian  zeal  and  holiness. 

THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  AND  HER  DAUGHTER- 
CHURCHES. 

The  Anglican  Church  though  being  only  now  the  Es- 
tablished Church  of  England  and  Wales — a very  small 
part  of  the  British  empire — still  retains  by  numerous  spir- 
itual cords  and  powers  influence  over  her  Colonial  daugh- 
ters so  that  even  after  years  of  existence  in  lands  far  dis- 
tant, the  daughter  Churches  are  spoken  of  as  ‘‘The 
Church  of  England,’’  though  they  may  each  have  an  or- 
ganic name  and  independent  ecclesiastical  government. 

There  are,  however,  two  notable  exceptions,  viz. : “The 
Church  of  Ireland”  and  the  “Church  of  Scotland.”  (The 
Established  Church  of  Scotland  is  Presbyterian.)  But 
when  people  desire  to  draw  a distinction  between  the 
“Church  of  Ireland,”  and  the  “Roman  Catholic  Church” 
in  Ireland  she  is  called  by  the  name  of  “The  Church  of 
England.” 

*1  refer  to  the  Preface  of  the  King  James’  or  Authorized  Edi- 
tion of  the  Bible.  The  American  Bible  Society  has  removed 
this  Preface,  and  so  has  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  from 
her  edition  set  forth  by  the  General  Convention  of  1903.  This  is 
indeed  a gross  wrong. 


28 


It  is  strange  but  a historical  fact  that  there  never,  per- 
haps, would  have  been  any  subserviency  on  the  part  of 
the  Early  Irish  Church  to  the  Papal  See,  but  for  England. 
Henry  II,  King  of  England,  1155  A.D.  coveted  Ireland. 
At  that  time  Adrian  IV,  the  only  Englishman  that  ever 
occupied  the  Papal  Chair,  fell  in  with  Henry’s  desire  so 
as  to  accomplish  his  own  ends  and  thereby  increase  his 
ecclesiastical  tax  (Peter  Pence).  He,  therefore,  issued  a 
Bull  in  which  he  assumed  that  to  St.  Peter  were  given 
the  Isles  of  the  Sea  and  thereby  he,  as  the  alleged  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter,  gave  his  blessing  to  Henry’s  invasion.* 
Within  six  months  of  Henry’s  occupation  of  Ireland,  in 
the  city  of  Cashel  at  an  assembly  of  Bishops  and  Clergy, 
he  had  enacted  a law  that  ‘"all  things  shall  in  future  in  all 
parts  of  Ireland  be  regulated  after  the  model  of  Holy 
Church,  and  according  to  the  observances  of  the  Anglican 
Church.”  (The  Anglican  Church  was  at  this  time  in  bon- 
dage under  the  Papal  See.)  Thus  was  abolished  the  in- 
dependence of  the  National  Church  which  was  noted  orig- 
inally for  her  learning,  piety,  numerous  saints  and  mis- 
sionaries.""  In  after  years  when  the  Reformation  took 
place  in  England,  though  indeed  Ireland  followed  in  the 
train  of  England,  yet  the  cruelties  and  wrongs  which  the 
Irish  people  suffered  from  the  English  government  gave 

®Plouden's  Historical  Review  of  the  State  of  Ireland.  Ap- 
pendixes Nos.  I and  2. 

^Pope  Alexander  III  confirmed  the  former  grant.  He  seems 
very  ignorant  of  the  real  state  of  the  Old  Church  of  Ireland  for 
he  speaks  of  her  as  ^^that  rude  and  disordered  Church.”  He,  of 
course,  took  his  key  note  from  Henry  II,  for  Rome  never  until 
his  reign  had  jurisdiction  over  the  Irish  Church. 


29 


the  Church  of  Rome  ample  opportunity  to  hear  the 
Hibernian  cry  and  step  in  and  maintain  a schism  which 
to-day  in  numbers  is  larger  than  the  lawful  and  historical 
''Church  of  Ireland.”  ® 

"The  Church  of  Scotland”  is  generally  spoken  of  as  the 
"Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland”  in  contra-distinction  to 
the  Established  Presbyterian  Church. 

After  the  American  Colonies  had  declared  their  inde- 
pendence, by  some  peculiar  course  of  events,  whereby  the 
Church  of  England  had  to  assert  both  her  protesting  char- 
acter against  Rome  and  her  apostolicity  against  Sectarian- 
ism, she  assumed  the  title  "The  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.”  This  name,  while  it  has  gathered  into  her  fold 
thousands  from  the  different  sects  of  Protestants,  yet  it 
has  hindered  her  much  in  Catholic  progress,  for  it  has 
been  like  a load  of  lead  tied  about  her  neck,  and  has 
been  the  cause  of  more  explanations,  at  times,  than  the 
Apostles’  Creed,  or  some  of  her  "Thirty  Nine  Articles.” 

THE  DIFFERENT  NATIONAL  EXPLORATIONS  BROUGHT  THEIR 
OWN  CHURCH  ORGANIZATIONS. 

Here  we  may  well  introduce  a fact  and  that  is  this,  that 
the  country  now  covered  by  what  is  known  as  the  United 
States  was  originally  peopled  in  different  sections  by 
those  who  differed  in  religious  beliefs.  The  New  Eng- 
land States  were  chiefly  Puritan  (congregational  in  gov- 

'Historical  Sketch  of  the  Church  of  Ireland,  by  Rev.  Arthur 
W.  Edwards,  M.A.,  in  Essays  on  the  Irish  Church. 


30 


ernment).  The  Louisiana  and  Mexican®  Purchases,  etc., 
and  extreme  southern  districts  were  occupied  by  Roman 
Catholics.  The  Middle  States  by  adherents  of  the  Angli- 
can Church  and  Continental  Protestants  of  numerous 
shades  of  opinion  as  well  as  Presbyterians  and  Methodists 
from  the  British  Islands.  There  never  was  a time,  there- 
fore, when  the  Anglican  Church  or  her  daughter  ‘‘The 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church’"  had  exclusive  jurisdiction 
in  North  America. 

The  folly,  presumption,  and  ignorance  of  the  editor  of 
‘The  Living  Church,”  “The  Church  Standard,”  etc.,  and 
some  more  of  those  whom  a little  learning  has  made 
ridiculous  can  be  clearly  seen  when  we  consider  how  the 
different  shades  of  Christian  belief  and  practice  both 
Anglican,  Roman  and  Protestant  made  up  the  original 
Religious  Life  of  the  United  States.  In  fact  each  nation 
which  made  a discovery  in  this  western  continent  brought 
its  own  Church,  and  as  in  the  case  of  the  Puritans,  too 
often  drove  out  and  persecuted  all  who  were  not  of  their 
religious  persuasion.  The  Anglican  Church  had  to  battle 
for  existence  like  the  rest,  and,  perhaps,  on  account  of 
having  been  once  the  Established  Church  of  England 
had  a harder  climb  up  the  hill  of  fame  for  the  reason 
that  much  prejudice  was  against  anything  that  flavored 
of  the  British  Kingdom  against  which  the  colonies  had 
rebelled. 


The  Louisiana  Purchase  was  consummated  between  the  French 
and  United  States  agents,  April  30th,  A.D.  1803. 

The  Mexican  Treaty  was  concluded  in  the  winter  of  A.IX  1847- 
48.  (Feb.  2.) 


31 


THE  RUSSIAN  ORTHODOX  CHURCHES  LEGAL  AND  CANONICAL 
COJURISDICTION. 

The  Russian  Orthodox  Church,  therefore,  has  a claim 
equal  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  of  Louisiana  or  New 
Mexico  or  the  Anglican  Church  in  the  United  States. 
For,  as  Dean  Hotovitzky  well  pointed  out,  the  Rus- 
sian Orthodox  Church  occupied  Alaska  and  was  swept 
into  the  great  religious  current  which  makes  up  the 
Christian  Church  of  the  United  States  by  means  of  the 
purchase  of  that  northwestern  territory  by  this  govern- 
ment from  the  Russian  Empire. 

The  United  States  has  of  late  added  millions  of  Roman 
Catholics  to  her  body  politic  in  the  purchases  she  has 
made.  The  Philippine  Islands,  Porto  Rico,  etc.,  knew 
of  no  Anglican  Church  as  having  had  any  tangible  exist- 
ence in  their  midst  until  after  the  Spanish  war.  Yet  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  content  to  step  in  and,  like 
the  different  sects  of  Protestantism,  follow  the  flag,  and 
not  only  try  to  care  for  her  own  people,  but  also  take  all 
others  under-ker  ecclesiastical  wing  who  may  feel  more 
satisfied  there.  I have  not  heard  of  any  protest  coming 
from  Rome  for  she  understands  the  political  doctrine  of 
the  United  States  that  neither  Pope  nor  Protestant  has  all 
to  say.  The  rule  here  is  *‘live  and  let  live.’’ 

It  is  too  late  in  the  day  then  for  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  to  order  off  the  Russian  Church.  She 
ought  to  have  begun  her  protest  if  ever  against  the  pur- 
chase of  Alaska,  and  given  for  her  absurd  reason  that 
that  would  endanger  her  (the  P.  E.  Ch.’s),  title  to  univer- 
sal national  jurisdiction  by  gathering  into  the  Union  a 


32 


territory  which  had  as  a church,  one  holding  the  Holy 
Orthodox  Faith.  Aye,  indeed,  the  faith  which  gave  to 
England  and  the  world  the  truths  so  fondly  cherished 
by  all  who  name  the  name  of  that  Christ  Who  was  born, 
Who  taught  the  Gospel,  suffered,  died,  rose  and  as- 
cended into  heaven  in  the  East,  and  from  the  little  spot 
Palestine,  which  is  pre-eminently  and  ecumenically  de- 
creed as  being  owned  by  the  Holy  Orthodox  Church  from 
which  all  other  Churches  have  taken  their  rise,  their 
truth,  and  their  true  light. 

ANGLICAN  CLAIMS. 

The  Anglican  Church  claims  to  be  the  Catholic  Church 
of  England  and  in  no  way,  shape  or  by  pretense  will  she 
permit  that  claim  to  be  disturbed  in  what  is  known  as 
England  and  Wales  where  she  is  established  by  law.  The 
Church  of  Ireland  claims  Apostolic  right  to  her  jurisdic- 
tion in  Ireland,  and  the  Church  of  Scotland,  though 
feeble  yet  still  in  healthy  growth,  in  like  manner  pro- 
claims her  right  to  such  a heritage  in  that  land.  Each 
National  Church  claims  to  be  an  integral  portion  of  the 
Catholic  Church. 

Traditions  give  as  founders  of  Christianity  in  Britain 
amongst  many  others  Joseph  of  Arimathaea  and  St  Paul. 
Clemens  Romanus  (Bishop  92-101)  is  the  authority  for 
the  statement  that  St.  Paul  traveled  to  the  bounds  of  the 
West.  If  this  be  so  then  he  must  have  preached  in 
Britain,  for  that  country  and  the  adjoining  islands  were 
known  in  the  days  even  of  Solomon  as  the  ‘‘Tin  Islands.’’ 
The  odor  et  refers  to  St.  Paul  as  bringing  salvation  to  the 


33 


"‘Isles  of  the  Ocean/^  Bede,  an  early  English  Church 
historian,  claims  that  Lucius  sent  to  Eleutherius,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  A.D.  137-199,  for  instructors/  Tertullian 
(A.D.  150-200)  tells  us  that  “even  those  places  in  Britain 
hitherto  inaccessible  to  the  Romans  were  subdued  to 
Christ/'  Origen  (A.D.  240)  says:  “The  power  of  God  our 
Saviour  is  even  with  them  in  Britain  who  are  divided 
from  our  world."  In  the  year  305  the  British  Church 
gave  to  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  the  celebrated  martyr, 
St.  Alban,  who  was  an  officer  of  the  Roman  army  in 
Britain. 

Historians  inform  us  that  Christianity  was  introduced 
into  Britain  at  an  early  period,  some  stating  as  early  as 
A.D  69,  others  in  the  first  part  of  the  second  century, 
still  others  in  the  second  half  of  the  second  century.  But 
be  that  as  it  may  as  to  the  exact  date,  Britain  accepted 
the  Christian  Religion  in  either  Apostolic  or  Sub-apostolic 
days  and  long  prior  to  any  of  the  noted  councils  or  synods 
of  the  East  or  West.  It  is  a recorded  fact  even  by  Roman 
Catholic  Historians^  as  well  as  others,  that  British  Bishops 
took  part  in  the  Council  of  Arles  in  France  held  in  the 
year  A.D.  314.  We  have  even  their  names  given,  viz.: 
Eborius  of  York,  Restitutes  of  London  and  Adelfius  of 
Lincoln.  The  name  of  one  of  these  prelates  appears 
among  the  signatures  attached  to  the  Synodical  Letter. 


^Rome  lays  stress  on  Bede’s  statement  to  prove  Roman  origin 
for  the  British  Church  as  well  as  Papal  supremacy.  This  is  too 
weak  a plank  on  which  to  erect  such  a great  structure. 

^History  of  the  Christian  Councils  to  A.D.  325,  by  Hefele 
(R.  C.) 


34 


And  there  are  those  who  tell  us  that  even  British  Bishops 
were  delegates  to  the  Council  of  Nicsea,  A.D.  325’. 

ST.  Augustine's  mission. 

There  is  no  trace  of  the  slightest  assumption  of  su- 
premacy on  the  part  of  the  Romish  Church  over  Britain 
down  to  the  year  596  A.D.  and  there  was  no  attempt  made 
to  overthrow  the  lawful  spiritual  authority  of  that  country 
by  St.  Augustine,  who  had  received  his  episcopal  orders 
in  France  597  A.D.  though  delegated  as  a missionary  by 
Gregory,  Bishop  of  Rome,  to  assist  the  Old  British 
Church  to  convert  the  Saxons  (who  had  almost  anni- 
hilated her  and  driven  out  the  Britons  from  their  homes). 
St.  Augustine  became  the  first  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, but  the  mission  which  he  had  established  had  died 
out  in  about  a hundred  years  and  never  had  extended  far 
beyond  the  limits  of  Kentshire  and  Essex  in  the  south  of 
England. 

Augustine  worked  in  comparative  harmony  with  the 
British  Bishops  after  he  had  been  informed  by  them  that 
they  neither  had  been  under  the  Pope  of  Rome  nor  would 
they  be  now.  The  Liturgy  of  the  British  Church  was 
Gallican^®  coming  to  them  as  it  is  thought  by  some  from 
the  Ephesian  Liturgy  through  St.  Irenaeus  who  was 
Bishop  of  Lyons  in  Gaul  177  A.D.  Yet  it  is  clear  that 
they  had  a Liturgy  earlier  than  this  date.  If,  indeed,  the 
Church  of  Britain  had  a Roman  origin  the  Liturgy  nat- 

®Rev.  C.  A.  Lane,  English  Ch.  History,  Vol.  i,  p.  17,  etc. 

Preface  to  the  Prayer  Book  Interleaved  by  Campion  and  Bea- 
mont,  1869. 


35 


urally  would  have  been  that  of  St.  Peter  or  the  Roman 
and  not  that  of  Eastern  origin.  But  this  fact  is  too  well 
established  to  provoke  controversy.  The  conversion  of 
Scotland  and  Ireland  to  Christianity  is  certainly  of  British 
origin;  and  long  after  England  had  accepted  Romish 
doctrines  and  discipline  as  well  as  worship,  Ireland  main- 
tained her  independence  and  purity  of  faith,  which  is  a 
proof  of  the  British  Church's  early  independence. 

THE  ENGLISH  REFORMATION. 

The  encroachments  of  the  Roman  Church  were  always 
resisted  by  the  English  Church  from  the  very  first  and 
this  resistance  toward  the  sixteenth  century  must  have 
been  very  strong. 

The  Church  as  a whole  must  have  been  prepared  for 
Reformation  and  liberation  from  her  ecclesiastical  yoke, 
to  so  successfully  free  herself  in  one  moment,  as  it  were, 
when  she  took  advantage  of  Henry  VIIPs  quarrel  with 
the  Pope  of  Rome  to  once  for  all  rise  up  to  her  ancient 
prestige  as  a National  Church,  recognizing  alone,  in 
things  spiritual,  Christ  as  Head  of  the  Church  without  the 
intervention  of  any  human  Vicar  in  Rome.  The  Con- 
vocation of  Canterbury,  March  31,  1534  A.D.,  and 
that  of  York  on  May  5,  1534  A.D.,  declared 

these  words  (and  the  Universities  and  the  Clergy 
throughout  the  English  realm  gave  without  any  difficulty 
their  assent  to  the  same)  '^that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  has 
no  greater  jurisdiction  conferred  on  him  by  God  in  this 
kingdom  of  England  than  any  other  foreign  bishop."^^ 


“ J.  H.  Blunf  s History  of  the  Reformation. 


36 


The  Irish  church  followed  the  Church  of  England  in 
the  work  of  Reformation,  but  in  the  reign  of  Edward 
VI  the  neglect  of  having  the  Prayer  Book  printed  in 
Gaelic  as  well  as  in  English  became  a sore  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  spreading  the  teaching  of  the  Reformed  Church. 
However,  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  all  the  Irish  bishops 
excepting  two  accepted  the  Reformed  Faith. 

The  Scotch  Reformation  took  a purely  Calvinistic  turn 
under  John  Knox.  Sacrilege  and  murder  as  well  as  vile 
and  abusive  language  were  pre-eminently  characteristic 
of  it.  Cardinal  Beaton  was  murdered  and  Mary,  Queen 
of  Scots,  slandered  unmercifully  at  a later  period.  Even 
the  attempt  of  England  to  restore  the  Reformed  episco- 
pate in  later  years  met  with  bitter  opposition  and  those 
who  had  been  sent  were  disrespectfully  treated  and  driven 
out.  The  present  Episcopate  of  Scotland  has  won  its 
way,  but  not  as  the  head  of  the  sect  founded  by  John 
Knox.  It  does  not  even  occupy  the  cathedrals  or  ancient 
church  property.  Presbyterianism,  as  an  established 
church,  claims  these. 

Though  an  attempt  was  made  during  the  reign  of 
Queen  Mary  through  the  efforts  of  that  wise  ecclesiastic. 
Cardinal  Pole,  to  bring  back  the  English  Church  to  full 
and  perpetual  obedience  to  Rome,  the  thing  failed  to  be 
accomplished.  The  Council  of  Trent  adjourned  during 
the  reign  of  Mary.  Her  death,  and  shortly  afterwards 
that  of  Cardinal  Pole  who  was  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury passed  the  succession  to  the  throne  over  to  Eliza- 
beth and  the  Church  into  the  hands  of  the  lovers  of 
Reformation. 


37 


ANGLICAN  CLAIM  OF  CONTINUITY. 

The  Anglican  Church  claims  that  she  has  not  violated 
one  Catholic  principle  in  the  work  of  the  Reformation. 
She  falls  back  on  the  VIII  Canon  of  the  third  Ecumenical 
Council  (Ephesus)  to  show  that  she  had  a right  to  cast 
off  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  of  Rome,  believing  as  she 
does  that  St.  Peter  had  no  greater  spiritual  power  or 
jurisdiction  granted  to  him  by  our  dear  Lord  than  any 
of  the  other  Apostles.  She  finds  in  the  case  of  Naaman 
the  Syrian  a type  of  herself  and  her  relationship  with 
Rome,  i.  e.,  that  as  Naaman  was  a man  of  perfect  health 
and  existed  before  his  leprosy  he  continued  to  be  the 
same  person  subject  to  the  disease  and  when  he  was 
cleansed  from  the  leprosy  he  was  none  other  than  the 
Naaman  before  he  had  been  afflicted.  In  like  manner  the 
Church  of  England  lost  nothing  of  her  identity  during 
her  spiritual  sickness  arising  from  the  errors  of  Rome, 
much  less  when  she  threw  them  off  and  became  spiritually 
healthy  again  in  A.D.  1534.  Still  it  strikes  me  queerly 
that  she  retained  the  ‘ffllioque’’  in  the  Nicene  Creed  which 
was  purely  a Western  papal  interpolation  of  the  Council 
of  Toledo,  589  A.D.  and  in  strict  violation  of  the  third 
General  Council.  She  has  not  so  far  freed  herself  from 
Rome,  but  is  in  bondage  and  has  given  quasi  consent  to 
the  fact  that  Rome  can  add  to  the  faith  without  consulting 
the  Holy  Eastern  Church  and  is  higher  than  the  General 
Councils.  She  further  claims  that  she  has  retained  all 
the  essentials  of  an  integral  portion  of  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church,  viz. : the  threefold  ministry : the  Sacraments,  the 


38 


Ritual,  Ornament  and  Vestments.  But  herein  lies  the 
field  for  controversy.  Rome  has  questioned  her  min- 
istry claiming  that  the  Ordinal  of  the  Prayer  Book  of 
Edward  VI  and  also  of  Elizabeth  was  defective,  etc. 

THE  ROMAN  CHURCHES  EXCEPTIONS. 

In  a general  way  I will  put  briefly  Rome's  real  ob- 
jections to  Anglican  Orders,  as  given  by  Haddan“  and 
answered  by  him  also. 

1.  England  dropped  some  of  the  ancient  ceremonies 
connected  with  ordination. 

2.  England  omitted  certain  words  in  the  form  of  ordi- 
nation, e.  g.,  that  between  1549  and  1662  the  words  priest 
and  bishop  did  not  occur  in  the  actual  form  of  ordaining. 

3.  England  restricted  herself  to  words  insufficient  in 
themselves  to  express  the  office  of  priesthood. 

4.  Passing  over  all  objections  the  orders  are  claimed  to 
be  invalid  because  of  England  being  charged  by  Rome  as 
guilty  of  heresy  and  schism. 

5.  The  denial  on  the  part  of  the  Anglican  Church  of 
the  Eucharistic  sacrifice  and  a certain  formal  absolution, 
etc.,  which  infers  the  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  Intention. 

6.  The  lack  of  jurisdiction  from  a rightful  source. 

Leo  XIII  under  the  influence  of  the  unwise  and  hasty 

Cardinal  Vaughn,  Roman  Archbishop  of  Westminster, 
who  furnished,  it  is  supposed,  the  arguments  against 
English  orders,  issued  a Bull  declaring  them  invalid.  The 
two  Archbishops  of  England  replied  to  Leo  XIII  and,  as 


“Apostolical  succession  in  the  Church  of  England,  page  243. 


39 


it  is  thought  in  some  quarters,  successfully  overturned  his 
argument  and  pointed  out  the  perfect  validity  and  regu- 
larity of  English  Holy  Orders  and  the  sufficiency  of  the 
Anglican  Ordinal. 

Rome  has  also  questioned  the  English  Church’s  declara- 
tions in  reference  to  the  number  of  sacraments  of  the 
Gospel.  The  Catechism  of  the  Anglican  Church  defines 
her  belief  in  the  number  of  sacraments  in  her 
answer  to  the  question:  ''How  many  Sacraments  hath 
Christ  ordained  in  His  Church?”  by  replying  "Two  only, 
as  generally  necessary  to  salvation,  that  is  to  say.  Bap- 
tism and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord.”  In  the  Book  of 
Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England  which  had  once  to  be 
read  in  churches  instead  of  sermons  she  mentions  five 
others  as  being  "commonly  called  sacraments,”  that  is 
to  say.  Confirmation,  Penance,  Orders,  Matrimony,  and 
Extreme  Unction,  but,  strange  to  say,  in  Article  XXV 
of  the  "Thirty-nine,”  she  declares  that  these  "are  not 
to  be  counted  for  sacraments  of  the  Gospels,  being  such 
as  have  grown  partly  of  the  corrupt  following  of  the 
Apostles,  partly  are  states  of  life  allowed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures; but  yet  have  not  like  nature  of  Sacraments  with 
Baptism,  and  the  Lord’s  Supper,  for  that  they  have  not 
any  visible  sign  or  ceremony  ordained  of  God.” 

Indeed,  it  must  appear  to  the  most  unreasonable  mind 
that  this  Article  XXV  needs  careful  consideration,  for  it 
is  practically  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  whole  re- 
maining portions  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church. 

It  is  strange,  however,  that  the  Anglican  Church  has 
followed  the  Church  of  Rome  as  to  the  age  of  adminis- 


40 


tering  confirmation,  excepting  that  she  omits  the  chrism 
Yet  I rather  think  the  Anglican  Church  has  separated 
Confirmation  from  Holy  Baptism  for  different  reasons 
from  those  of  Rome  and  more  to  comply  with  a Protes- 
tant idea  of  making  a ''Profession  of  Faith/'  In  all  of 
this  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  Anglican  Church  she  needs 
close  examination,  for  it  is  a well-known  fact  of  history 
that  from  the  very  first  age  of  the  Christian  Church  both 
sacraments  were  administered  by  a Bishop  or  Priest  at 
one  and  the  same  time  and  to  infants  as  well  as  grown 
Catechumens. 

Whatever  criticisms  Rome  may  have  to  offer  now  in 
reference  to  the  Anglican  Church,  and  her  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,  especially  her  ordinal,  we  have  the  author- 
ity of*  Strype's  Annals  that  overtures  were  made  by 
Pope  Pius  V to  Queen  Elizabeth  of  England  to  the  ef- 
fect that  if  the  Anglican  Church  would  recognize  the  su- 
premacy of  the  Papal  See,  he,  the  Pope,  would  give  his 
approval  of  the  Work  of  the  Reformation  and  the  English 
Reformed  Prayer  Book.  The  Anglican  Church's  as  well 
as  Elizabeth's  flat  refusal  was  followed  by  the  queen's 
Excommunication  in  the  eleventh  year*''  of  her  reign  and 
the  immediate  work  on  the  part  of  Rome  to  create  a 
schism  in  the  Anglican  Church.  The  present  Papal 

“Note:  There  are  isolated  instances  of  the  use  of  chrism  now 
in  the  Anglican  Church,  but  there  is  no  Rubrical  authority  for 
the  use  of  it.  It  is  claimed  that  in  the  absence  of  Rubric  it  may 
be  lawfully  administered. 

“Strype’s  Annals,  220. 

“April  2f5,  IS70. 


41 


Church  of  England,  therefore,  had  no  existence  in  Eng- 
land until  the  eleventh  year  of  Queen  Elizabeth  and  what- 
ever may  be  said  to  the  contrary  the  English  Reformed 
Church  had  no  separate  body  of  Romish  origin  to  con- 
flict with  her  authority  until  then  or  with  her  jurisdiction 
in  the  British  kingdom/® 

The  question  which  naturally  may  be  asked  here  is 
this:  'To  what  extent,  if  any,  in  her  work  of  Reforma- 
tion has  she  wandered  from  the  faith  of  the  Seven  Gen- 
eral Councils,  or  sacrificed  Catholic  truth  and  principles 
in  either  her  aversion  to  Roman  errors,  or  with  the  desire 
to  please  the  continental”  ecclesiastical  revolutionists  who 
were  forever  harassing  her 

BISHOP  Grafton's  doctrinal  romancing. 

I have  read  with  great  care  the  thesis  or  letter  of  the 
Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Grafton,  Protestant  Episcopal  bishop  of 
Fond  du  Lac,  Wisconsin,  U.  S.,  published  in  the  April, 
1905,  number  of  the  Russian  American  supplement  of 
The  Messenger.  I fear  that  while  the  learned  Bishop 
Grafton  himself  believes  all  that  he  has  written  as  being 

Tn  1568  Rome  had  established  in  Douay  a seminary  for  refu- 
gee priests  and  from  this  after  the  Bull  of  excommunication 
furnished  Jesuits  to  run  over  to  England  and  strive  to  under- 
mine the  Established  Religion.  Smith’s  Students  Hume,  page  338. 

^’Nearly  800  refugee  Puritans  lived  in  Frankfort  and  other 
cities  of  Europe  during  the  reign  of  Mary.  They  were  those  to 
whom  the  Reformers  of  the  English  Church  showed  deference 
in  compiling  the  first  and  second  Prayer  Books  of  Edward  VI.  as 
well  as  those  used  previously.  They  now  in  Elizabeth’s  time, 
flocked  back  to  England.  This  emigration  was  the  beginning 
of  dissent  in  England. 


42 


the  doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Anglican  Church  it  is  but 
his  own  interpretation  of  the  same.  Two-thirds  of  her 
clergy  and  people  would  not  assent  to  all  that  he  says  and 
I am  positive  very  many  of  the  Bench  of  Bishops  would 
not  agree  with  him  in  very  many  of  his  declarations. 

I will  say  right  here  and  now  that  there  was  a vast 
difference  between  the  Reformation  in  England  and  that 
of  Revolution  on  the  Continent  of  Europe  and  the  work 
of  John  Knox  in  Scotland  which  latter  were  one  and  the 
same  in  more  or  less  degree  of  destructiveness  as  touching 
all  that  was  ancient  and  Catholic  excepting  that  Luther, 
Melanchthon  and  Oecolampadius  were  not  such  bitter 
Protestants  as  the  Calvinistic  school  of  thought.  The 
Revolutionists  severed  all  relations  with  Antiquity, 

The  English  Reformers  claim,  as  I have  already  said, 
that  they  retained  all  that  was  necessary  to  bind  them 
on  to  the  Apostolic  Church  of  the  First  Centuries.  Much 
of  the  Anglican  Church's  present  trouble  arises  from  the 
persecution  in  the  Cromwellian  period  when  she  for  thirty 
years  had  her  churches  closed  against  her  and  a penalty 
fixed  against  the  use  of  her  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
of  the  observation  of  Christmas  Day,  Easter  or  the 
Feasts  and  Fasts.  And  then,  alas ! when  she  began  again 
to  raise  her  head  at  the  restoration  of  Charles  II  she  once 
more  suffered  from  the  deadness,  indifference  and  pro- 
fligacy both  of  the  courtiers  of  Charles  II,  and  the  Geor- 
gian period. 

Let  us  take  Bishop  Grafton's  letter  and  examine  it  with 
respect  and  frankness. 

(a)  I have  no  hesitancy  in  saying  and  I firmly  believe 


43 


I will  find  the  great  majority  of  learned  Anglicans  agree- 
ing with  me  that  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  are  absolutely 
compromises  in  many  respects.  The  Reformed  Church  of 
England  desired  to  uphold  that  which  was  Ancient  and 
Catholic,  but  she  was  between  two  fires^* — that  on  the  one 
hand  coming  from  those  who  were  not  willing  to  give 
up  altogether  Roman  views  and  practices;  and  on  the 
other  that  which  proceeded  from  the  Puritan  element, 
who  went  so  far  in  matters  of  ceremonial  as  to  object  *'to 
the  wearing  of  the  surplice,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and 
the  office  of  sponsors  in  Baptism;  the  use  of  the  ring  in 
the  marriage  ceremony,  kneeling  at  the  sacrament,  the 
bowing  at  the  name  of  Jesus  and  music  in  the  services 
of  the  Church.  They  also  objected  to  the  ordination  of 
priests  without  a call  by  their  flocks.’’^®  And  in  doctrine 
they  assailed  the  Catholic  view  of  sacraments  and  ordi- 
nances, hating  things  even  ancient  or  decent  because  they 
were  believed  and  practiced  by  Rome.  They  abhorred  an 
Episcopal  form  of  government. 

Now  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  which  received  the  as- 
sent of  Convocation  in  A.D.  1562-3  are  somewhat  colored 
in  doctrinal  views  as  well  as  in  language  by  the  influence 
of  such  ultra-Protestants.  Yet  Elizabeth  professed,  and 
no  doubt  was  sincere  in  the  declaration,  that  she  ‘Vould 
suppress  the  papistical  religion  that  it  should  not  grow 
and  would  root  out  Puritanism  and  the  favorers  of  it.’'""* 

“English  Book  of  Common  Prayer  “of  ceremonies,  why  some 
be  abolished,  and  some  retained.” 

“ Heglyn’s  History  of  the  Presbyterians,  259. 

^®Strype’s  Ecclesiastical  Annals,  iv.,  242. 


44 


Yet  however  true  this  may  be,  the  Anglican  Church  has 
always  compromised. 

For  instance,  the  first  Service-Book  under  Archbishop 
Cranmer  was  submitted  to  the  Protestants  Bucer  and 
Martyr.  Luther  and  Calvin  also  had  a hand  in  the  sug- 
gestions. It  must  be  noted  here  that  Archbishop  Cran- 
mer and  Bishop  Barlow  seemed  to  have  held  very  loose 
views  concerning  the  power  to  consecrate  a Bishop,  for 
both  of  them  claimed  that  the  King  could  make  as  good  a 
bishop  as  they  themselves.  The  Archbishop’s  position  in 
reference  to  the  Holy  Eucharist  and  which  prevailed  in 
the  Church  of  England  at  that  time  and  afterwards 
is  summed  up  by  Hardwick.*^ — Cranmer  ''vigorously  de- 
nounced four  positions,  ( i ) that  after  the  consecration  of 
the  elements  there  is  no  other  substance  remaining  but 
the  substance  of  Christ’s  flesh  and  blood;  (2)  that  the 
very  natural  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  suffered  for 
us  on  the  cross  and  ascended  into  heaven,  is  also  really, 
substantially,  corporally  and  naturally,  in  or  under  the 
accidents  of  bread  and  wine;  (3)  that  evil  and  ungodly 
men  receive  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ;  and  (4) 
that  Christ  is  figuratively  offered  daily  in  the  mass  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  that  the  merits  of  His  Passion  are 
thereby  distributed  to  the  communicants.”  He  argued 
that  Christ  is  figuratively  in  the  bread  and  wine,  and 
spiritually  in  them  that  worthily  eat  and  drink  the  bread 
and  wine;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  contended  that  our 
blessed  Lord  is  really,  carnally  and  corporally  in  heaven 


^^Hardwick  on  the  Reformation,  2 ed.,  pages  226-7. 


45 


alone,  from  whence  He  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick 
and  the  dead/’ 

Indeed,  all  arguments  to  the  contrary — ^passing  over 
all  revisions  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer — the  words 
used  at  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the  elements  are 
a compromised  formula.  It  may  teach  the  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation;  the  Real  Presence  or  the  basest  doc- 
trine of  Zwingli,  who  believed  and  taught,  to  coin  an  ex- 
pression, the  real  absence^  that  is  treating  the  Holy  Com- 
munion as  a mere  remembrance  of  the  acts  of  Christ  in 
His  death  and  resurrection  for  us.  The  exact  words  are 
as  follows: 

“The  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  given 
for  thee,  preserve  thy  body  and  soul  unto  everlasting  life. 
Take  and  eat  this  in  remembrance  that  Christ  died  for 
thee,  and  feed  on  Him  in  thy  heart  by  faith  with  thanks- 
giving:^ 

“The  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  shed 
for  thee,  preserve  thy  body  and  soul  unto  everlasting 
life.**  Drink  this  in  remembrance  that  Christ's  Blood  was 
shed  for  thee,  and  be  thankful."  (The  italics  are  mine.) 

At  one  time  we  do  not  find  the  words  in  italics  in  the 
communion  service.  They  are  not  in  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  of  A.D.  1549^  which,  by  the  by,  is  a very 
Catholic  book  in  many  respects.  As  they  now  appear 

^Communion  Service  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  English  or 
American. 

“Ibid. 

““The  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  1549,  commonly  called  the 
First  Book  of  Edward  VI  to  which  is  added  the  ordinal  of  1549 
and  the  Order  of  Holy  Communion,  1548,  with  an  introduction  by 
Morgan  Dix,  S.T.D.,  rector  of  Trinity  Church,  N.  Y.'' 


4b 


they  were  finally  settled  upon  in  the  Revision  under  Queen 
Elizabeth  and  as  Bishop  Whately  says  ‘‘both  these  forms 
were  enjoined  to  be  used  (as  we  have  them  still)  to  please 
both  parties/^^^  The  Scotch  Prayer  Book  does  not  have 
the  latter  half.  Its  communion  office  is  very  Catholic. 

But  again:  I fear  the  Anglican  Church  has  more  than 
compromised  in  Article  XXXI.  Here  she  has  not  only 
condemned  the  Romish  Doctrine,  viz.,  “the  sacrifices  of 
masses,  in  the  which  it  was  commonly  said  that  the  Priest 
did  offer  Christ  for  the  quick  and  dead  to  have  remission 
from  pain  or  guilt,”  but  also  has  dangerously  expressed 
herself  when  she  says  that  the  Eucharist  has  not  “a  pro- 
pitiatory virtue.”  Indeed  to  deny  the  “propitiatory  virtue” 
of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  is  almost  one  and  the  same  as 
a denial  of  the  fullness  of  the  expiation  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  which  is  memorially  offered  on  the  Altar. 

Now  we  must  read  these  facts  into  “The  Thirty-nine 
Articles”  viz. : a desire  to  hold  on  to  the  truth,  but  still 
a tendency  to  please  both  parties  which,  indeed,  though  it 
may  be  generous,  is  a very  dangerous  course  of  conduct 
and  is  a barrier  in  the  way  of  a quick  solution  of  the 
Anglican  question. 

Indeed,  we  find  commentators  writing  on  both  sides  of 
the  question.  And  theological  seminaries  which  exist  on 
the  support  coming  from  the  pockets  of  men  holding  a 
Catholic,  a conservative  or  a Low  Church  view  of  doc- 
trine.^® There  was  even  a time  in  the  General  Theological 

^'Whately  on  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  Oxford,  1846. 

g.  Catholic — Nashota.  Low  Church — Virginia  Seminary, 
Philadelphia  Divinity  School.  Conservative — Faribolt,  General 

Theological  Seminary,  Berkeley  Divinity  School,  etc.,  etc. 


47 


Seminary  of  the  United  States  that  the  faculty  was 
composed  of  men  holding  different  views.  The  Rev. 
Professors  George  F.  Seymour,  D.D.,  and  Randall  C. 
Hall,  D.D.,  were  Catholics,  while  the  others  were  either 
Conservative  or  Low  Church.  I would  to-day  rather 
take  Doctor  Seymour’s  opinion  on  what  was  the  teaching 
of  the  Anglican  Church  than  that  of  any  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Bishops.  He  is  by  far  the  most  learned 
prelate  and  though  he  now  modestly  presides  as  Bishop 
of  a poor  diocese  like  that  of  Springfield,  Illinois,  his 
word  and  knowledge  as  a Catholic,  as  well  as  a Theolo- 
gian and  Historian  have  never  been  disputed.  In  any 
reopening  of  the  question  of  reunion  his  name  ought  to  be 
first  on  the  Anglican  Committee.  He  is  perfectly  hon- 
est, possessing  no  guile;  or  as  we  in  the  United  States 
say  '‘He  is  not  tricky.” 

I well  remember  during  my  own  student  days  in  the 
General  Seminary"*^  that  the  sight  in  the  classroom  of 
the  work  which  Bishop  Grafton  quotes  from  and  recom- 
mends as  the  proper  voice  of  the  Anglican  Church  on 
"The  Thirty-nine  Articles,”  was  a sure  sign  of  war.  The 
Professor  of  Systematic  Divinity,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Samuel 
Buel — denounced  Bishop  Forbes’  work  as  a Romanizing 
Commentary.  And  when  the  Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven  de- 
fended the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Objective  Presence  in  the 
General  Convention  we  were  treated  by  the  said  Dr. 
Buel  with  a course  of  written  lectures  combating  that 
doctrine  and  denouncing  DeKoven.^* 

"*A.D.,  1871-1874. 

“'‘Eucharistic  Adoration,”  etc.,  by  Rev.  Samuel  Buel,  D.D., 
professor,  etc.  Thomas  Whitaker,  New  York. 


48 


The  regular  text  book  on  the  ‘‘Thirty-nine  Articles’’ 
prescribed  by  the  authority  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  was  that  by  E.  Harold  Browne,  B.D.,  afterwards 
a Bishop  in  the  Established  Church  of  England.  It  is 
a very  Conservative  work,  but  of  a different  line  of  argu- 
ment from  that  of  Bishop  Forbes’  Exposition. 

I will  say,  however,  that  while  Bishop  Grafton’s  state- 
ment in  reference  to  doctrine  is,  or  ought  to  be,  the  true 
Anglican  faith,  still  that  Church,  claiming  to  be  a via 
media*  between  Romanism  and  Protestantism,  finds  her- 
self misunderstood  by  the  Holy  Eastern  Church,  and  nat- 
urally so,  for  her  own  children  do  not  agree  between 
themselves  on  some  of  the  most  essential  dogmas.  There 
is  no  definition  of  doctrine  extant  in  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  coming  from  her  House  of  Bishops  or 
General  Convention  covering  the  actual  belief  of  that 
portion  of  the  Anglican  Church  in  reference  to  contro- 
versial points  excepting  The  Thirty-nine  Articles  as  ac- 
cepted by  the  General  Convention  on  the  12th  of  Septem- 
ber, A.D.  1801. 

Second : Bishop  Grafton  says  . . to  arrive  at 

an  understanding  of  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  Angli- 
can Church  other  books  besides  that  of  the  Common 
Prayer  should  be  taken  into  account.  Besides  the  latter 
there  is  in  America  the  authorized  Hymn  Book  and  in 
England  that  of  most  use  is  the  Book  known  as  ‘Hymns 
Ancient  and  Modern.’  ” 

The  only  difficulty  about  trying  to  prove  anything  defi- 


**Preface  to  the  King  James  version  of  the  English  Bible. 


49 


nite  from  the  Hymnals  is  this : That  no  priest  need  use 
these  books  if  he  can  supply  their  places  with  anthems 
taken  from  Holy  Writ.  While  the  Hymnal  contains 
beautiful  pieces  of  devotion  no  man  is  compelled  by 
Rubric  or  Canon  to  use  any  special  hymn  so  as  to  bring 
out  thereby  any  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  There  is  as  wide  an  interpretation  of  any  doc- 
trine permitted  in  the  use  of  the  Hymns  of  the  American 
Hymnal  as  there  is  in  some  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles. 
Furthermore  ‘‘Hymns  Ancient  and  Modern’’  of  the 
Church  of  England  are  only  used  by  one  school  of 
thought  in  that  Church.  The  hymns  which  Bishop  Graf- 
ton quotes  as  expressing  the  Anglican  teaching  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  of  its  reception,  of  the  adoration  of  our 
Blessed  Lord’s  Presence,  the  declaration  that  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  a Sacrifice,  that  those  who  are  baptized  are 
New  Creatures,  that  Confirmation  is  something  more 
than  an  assuming  of  one’s  Baptismal  vows,  that  Apostol- 
ical succession  is  a Divine  Institution,  that  Auricular 
Confession  is  encouraged,  that  Holy  Matrimony  is  a Sac- 
rament, or  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick  is  Extreme  Unction ; 
surely  the  good  Bishop  must  have  forgotten  that  the 
Hymn  Book  from  which  he  quoted  is  repudiated  by  every 
''Low  Church''  Bishop,  Priest,  Deacon  and  Layman  of 
England,  and  that  this  Book  cannot  be  lawfully  used  in 
any  congregation  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
without  the  permission  of  the  Bishop. 

The  absolute  truth  is  this,  that  if  any  man  desires  to 
know  what  the  Anglican  Church  teaches  he  must  con- 
fine himself  chiefly  to  the  “Book  of  Common  Prayer”  and 


50 


when  he  finds  himself  in  doubt  as  to  any  doctrine  therein 
expressed  he  need  not  expect  any  special  comfort  in  con- 
sulting authorities  for  there  is  permitted  a wide  variance 
of  opinion  as  to  the  doctrinal  interpretation  thereof  in 
the  Anglican  Church. 

Third:  Bishop  Grafton  says  the  Anglican  Church 

keeps  ''in  its  spirit  the  rulings  of  the  Seventh  Ecumenical 
Council.’'  No  doubt  whatever,  the  Bishop  himself  and  a 
certain  school  of  thought  in  the  line  of  the  late  Rev.  Dr. 
Percivar  of  Philadelphia  believes  that  there  was  a "Sev- 
enth (General  or)  Ecumenical  Council,”  but  he  must  re- 
member right  well  that  the  Anglican  Church  has  stopped 
short  at  the  sixth.  She  even  has  declared  in  her  Pan- 
Anglican  Conference^^  held  at  Lambeth,  London,  Eng- 
land, with  the  same  cautiousness  for  fear  of  entangle- 
ment with  conflicting  religious  opinions,  that  her  doc- 
trinal teachings,  etc.,  must  fall  within  the  limits  of  the 
^'undisputed''  general  councils;  and  she  only  recognizes 
four  general  councils  — making  the  second  and 
third  of  Constantinople  supplementary — she  permits, 
however,  the  title  of  ecumenical  to  the  Fifth  and  Sixth, 
that  is,  the  Supplementary  Councils  of  Constantinople. 
The  Rev.  Prof.  W.  J.  Gold,  S.T.D.,  in  the  "Church  Cyclo- 
paedia”“  under  the  head  of  "Councils  Ecumenical,”  writes 
"Six  Synods  alone  have  been  universally  received  by  the 

^Tercival  on  the  General  Councils  and  Synods,  etc. 

Pan- Anglican  Conference,  1867. 

*^The  Church  Cyclopaedia,  etc.,  designed  especially  for  the  use 
of  the  Laity  of  the  P.  E.  Church,  edited  by  Rev.  A.  A.  Benson, 
M.A.,  1884. 


51 


Catholic  Church,''  Dr.  Gold®®  now  dead,  was  one  of  the 
Catholic  school  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

Fourth:  The  truth  is  that  while  the  Anglican  Church 
may  hold  all  that  Bishop  Grafton  believes  to  be  her  doc- 
trine she  does  not  demand  absolute  acceptance  of  those 
doctrines  in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  Bishop  expresses 
them.  She  has  always  '‘a  loop  hole’’  for  ultra-Protes- 
tants. Take  for  instance  the  Ordinal®*  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church.  Here  we  find  an  alternative  form  of 
words  which  the  Bishop  may  use  according  to  the  views 
which  he  holds  of  the  Priestly  powers.  I herewith  sub- 
mit them  both  so  as  to  be  perfectly  fair.  The  first  Form 
reads  as  follows: 

‘'Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  Office  and  Work  of 
a Priest  in  the  Church  of  God,  now  committed  unto  thee 
by  the  Imposition  of  our  hands.  Whose  sins  thou  dost  for- 
give, they  are  forgiven;  and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain, 
they  are  retained.  And  be  thou  a faithful  Dispenser  of 
the  Word  of  God,  and  of  His  holy  Sacraments.  In  the 
Name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  Amen.”®® 

The  second  Form  reads: — 

“Take  thou  Authority  to  execute  the  Office  of  a Priest 
in  the  Church  of  God,  now  committed  to  thee  by  the  Im- 
position of  our  hands.  And  be  thou  a faithful  dispenser  of 
the  Word  of  God,  and  of  his  holy  Sacraments:  In  the 

®^Rev.  Dr.  Gold  was  a professor  in  the  P.  E.  Theological  Sem- 
inary of  Chicago. 

^^Ordinal  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  page  509. 

®®Ordering  of  Priests,  522. 


52 


Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  Amen.’’ 

Here  I may  note  for  the  benefit  of  Bishop  Grafton  that 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  expunged  from  her  first 
exhortation  notifying  the  people  of  communion  the  word 
"^absolution.”^"*  This  can  be  found  in  the  English  form, 
but  for  fear  that  the  Protestants  of  the  United  States 
would  be  offended  by  the  invitation  to  come  to  Auricular 
Confession  and  receive  there  ‘^absolutions  she  struck  out 
the  word  to  which  I refer  and  invited  them  to  come  for 
godly  counsel  and  advice  if  they  could  not  quiet  their 
own  consciences  privately.  She  (the  P.  E.  Church)  has 
with  one  stroke  of  her  pen  wiped  out  of  existence  both 
the  Rubric  to  confess  in  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick  as 
well  as  the  Form  of  Absolution.”  It  may  be  noted  also 
that  in  the  English  Ordinal  there  is  not  an  Alternative 
form  for  Ordination  of  Priests.  The  first  one  is  alone 
used,  so  in  that  respect  it  is  more  explicit  than  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church. 

NO  AUTHORITATIVE,  BUT  IN  FACT  CONTRADICTORY,  TEACH- 
ING IN  REFERENCE  TO  INDELIBILITY  OF  HOLY  ORDERS  IN 

THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

Now  while  I am  considering  this  matter  of  the  Ordinal 
I may  be  permitted  to  refer  to  the  doctrine  of  the  “Indeli- 
bility of  Holy  Orders”  in  the  Anglican  Church.  But  as 

^Compare  last  paragraph  of  first  Exhortation  in  Protestant 
Episcopal  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  page  240,  with  the  like  one 
in  the  Prayer  Book  of  the  Church  of  England. 

®^Compare  English  Prayer  Book  “Visitation  of  the  Sick,*'  with 
that  of  the  P.  E.  Church. 


53 


I am  most  concerned  with  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  matter  of  Ordinal,  I had  better  confine  my 
remarks  chiefly  to  her  teaching  on  the  subject.  In  her 
canon  39  of  A.D.  1832,  under  section  one  she  says:  ‘‘No 
degraded  minister  shall  be  restored  to  the  ministry.’' 
She  now  provides  canonically  for  the  restoration  of  a 
degraded  minister;  that  is,  she  tells  how  that  restora- 
tion^® may  be  effected  canonically,  viz. : ( i ) by  the  consent 
of  the  Diocesan;  (2)  the  unanimous  consent  of  a mixed 
committee  of  clergymen  and  laymen  known  as  a Stand- 
ing Committee;  (3)  by  the  consent  of  four  out  of  the  five 
adjoining  Bishops.  But  after  all  these  have  consented 
there  is  not  one  word  as  to  how  the  cleric  is  to  be  re- 
stored; that  is,  receive  again  his  Faculties.  There  is  no 
provision  in  the  way  of  service  prescribed  by  Canon, 
nor  is  there  any  form  in  the  Liturgy  or  Common  Prayer 
Books  of  England  or  America.  Indeed,  any  bishop  not 
believing  in  “the  Indelibility  of  Holy  Orders”  may  again 
lay  hands  upon  the  Cleric  so  restored  canonically,  but 
not  liturgically.  I ask  what  canon,  or  rubric,  or  rule 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  usage  is  there  to  prevent? 
The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  does  not  regard  an- 
cient usage  or  even  Biblical  usage  where  she  desires  to 
the  contrary,  nor  can  she  boast  of  having  regard  espe- 
cially for  the  Ancient  Canons.”  For  instance,  contrary 

“Digest  of  Canons.  The  General  Convention,  1904,  under  ‘^Dis- 
cipline.’’ 

“ It  is  an  appalling  fact,  but  true,  that  if  the  Apostolical  Canons 
were  put  in  force  as  to  the  whole  Anglican  Priesthood,  not  one 
bishop,  priest,  or  deacon,  who  has  entered  into  the  state  of  holy 
matrimony  after  ordination  is  entitled  to  serve  at  her  altar,  but 
is  a subject  of  perpetual  suspension,  in  fact,  of  excommunication. 


54 


to  the  Seventh  Apostolical  Canon  her  bishops  can  marry 
twice  after  consecration.  Some  have  married  three  times 
— yes,  four.  There  is  no  law  whether  the  wife  shall  be 
virgin,  widow,  brother’s  wife,  or  the  possessor  of  a 
divorce  from  a former  husband  if  she  be  the  innocent 
party.  And  the  Bishop,  too,  may  have  the  same  right 
as  to  divorce,  all  of  which  is  contrary  to  Canon  i8  of  the 
Apostolic.  The  hue  and  cry  then  as  to  my  ordination 
after  a deposition  by  a Protestant  Episcopal  Bishop  is  not 
serious  when  especially  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
has  never  defined  in  Council  assembled  what  her  doc- 
trine is  in  reference  to  the  Priesthood  and  its  Indelibility. 
In  fact,  to  be  very  honest  and  explicit,  there  is  a wide, 
very  wide  variance  of  opinion.  The  saintly  Bishop  of 
Pennsylvania,  the  Rt.  Rev.  Dr.  Ozi  W.  Whitaker,  told  me 
years  ago  in  the  Diocesan  House  in  Philadelphia  that  he 
did  ''not  believe  in  the  Indelibility  of  Holy  Orders.”  Then 
according  to  his  belief  the  Canonical  consent  of  the  three 
parties,  viz. : the  Diocesan,  Standing  Committee  and  four 
Bishops,  would  not  give  the  restored  any  spiritml  powers 
to  exercise  the  Office  and  Work  of  a Priest  and  in  that 
case  surely  relaying  on  of  hands,  or  as  it  may  be  called 
by  some  ‘V^ordination,”  was  necessary.  Otherwise  the 
man  Canonically  restored  was  still  a layman  having  only 
the  consent  to  have  his  name  on  the  Clerical  list  without 
spiritual  power. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  before  it  criticises 
any  portion  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  or  the  action 
of  any  bishop  of  the  same  not  in  union  with  her  or  not 
recognizing  her  must  surely  first  set  her  own  ‘‘house  in 


55 


order/’  and  declare  her  doctrines  in  some  explicit  way  in 
order  that  not  only  others  but  her  own  children  may 
know  what  she  believes.  She  is  synodically  silent  on  the 
''Indelibility  of  Holy  Orders”  Besides,  however  Catho- 
lic the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  may  believe  herself 
to  be  yet  by  her  acts  and  negations,  by  her  lack  of  as- 
sertion as  well  as  her  denial  by  action  of  ancient  canons 
and  usages,  and  above  all  by  her  lack  of  provision  for  the 
proper  administration  of  Sacraments  and  Rites  as  an- 
ciently administered,  she  lays  herself  open  to  just  criti- 
cism from  both  the  Eastern  and  Roman  portions  of  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church. 

There  is  a private  book  in  the  Church  of  England  used 
by  the  different  schools  of  thought,  that  is  known  as  the 
^‘Priest’s  Prayer  Book.”  It  is  an  unauthorized  appendix 
to  the  ''Book  of  Common  Prayer,”  but  its  universal  use 
gives  it  quasi  authority.  In  it  can  be  found  a "Form  of 
Degradation  from  Holy  Orders’”®  and  also  an  "Office  for 
the  Reconciliation  of  a Lapsed  Cleric.”"  In  this  latter 
there  is  actually  a form  of  r^ordination  for  the  Bishop 
lays  his  hand  on  the  Cleric's  head,  and  both  releases  him 
"from  spiritual  censures”  and  restores  him  to  his  office 
or  grade.  He  also  blesses  him  and  prays  that  Christ  may 
make  him  "a  Priest  unto  Him  for  evermore.”  But 
I have  said  that  these  offices  are  not  authorized  by  the 
English  Church,  that  is  by  convocation,  or  by  any  part  of 
the  Anglican  Church  in  council,  but  they  show  the  mind  of 


*®Priesf  s Prayer  Book,  page  288. 
“Ibid,  page  291. 


56 


the  Church  on  different  points.  The  best  and  now  the 
most  celebrated  authority  of  the  Anglican  Church  is  the 
Rt.  Rev.  Charles  Gore,  D.D.,  a Bishop  of  the  Church  of 
England.*^  He  writes,  . . it  is  quite  certain  that 

the  early  Church  did  not  draw  the  clear  line  which  was 
drawn  later  between  the  reality  of  the  Priesthood  and  its 
regular  exercise.  The  deposed  priest  was  really  regarded 
as  a layman,  (Italics  mine.)  And  in  the  same  way  ordi- 
nations, which  later  would  have  been  regarded  as  un- 
canonical,  were  in  early  days  regarded  as  invalid.  Mori- 
nus  expresses  the  matter  admirably  by  saying,  'Moraliter 
magis  et  civiliter  de  istis  philosophati  sunt,’  They 
thought  of  ordination,  that  is,  in  connection*  with  all  its 
moral  and  social  associations,  as  part  of  the  whole  life  of 
the  Church ; thus  very  naturally,  'they  did  not  regard  the 
validity  of  the  ordination  as  lying  merely  in  the  charac- 
ter of  the  act,  but  they  took  into  account  also  the  authority 
of  the  Church  and  questions  of  moral  expedience.’  ” 
There  is,  I know,  a diversity  of  opinion  between  wri- 
ters of  the  Ancient  Church  as  to  the  "Indelibility  of  Or- 
ders.” But  there  is  one  thing  certain  the  whole  Catholic 
Church  of  the  Seven  General  Councils  ordained,  or  if 
any  man  wishes  to  say  "reordained”  every  man  coming 
to  her  from  any  religious  body  not  recognized  by  her  as 
a part  of  the  Historical  Catholic  Church  of  Christ.  The 
Anglican  Church  has  not  as  yet  satisfied  the  Holy  Eastern 
Church  as  to  her  unbroken  succession  of  ministers  from 
the  time  of  the  Apostles.  The  individual  acknowledg- 


^^The  Ministry  of  the  Christian  Church,  published  1889,  page 

191. 


57 


ment  of  any  Eastern  Bishop  of  the  validity  of  the  Angli- 
can ministry  is  not  the  decision  of  the  whole  Eastern 
Church,  "’^nd  even  if  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church 
alone  should  accept  Anglican  orders  she  would  have 
thereby  to  cut  herself  off  from  the  remaining  portions 
of  the  Holy  Eastern  Church — she,  too,  would  place  an- 
other barrier  between  herself  and  the  Church  of  Rome. 
The  whole  matter  is  circled  with  many  weighty  considera- 
tions. The  Protestant  Episcopal  imprudent  and  disap-| 
pointed  advocates  who  have  resorted  to  vulgar  coerciv^ 
methods  have  certainly  disgraced  their  Church. 

Still  surely  in  a case  where  a Church,  however  liturgi- 
cally  correct  she  may  be,  is  not  in  union  with  those  por- 
tions of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  whose  mode  of  admin- 
istering Sacraments  has  never  been  questioned  as  touch- 
ing their  validity  and  regularity  and  which  have  a Canon 
demanding  reordination  of  non-Catholics,  or  in  absence 
of  a Canon  no  other  means  of  admitting  a person  coming 
to  them  from  that  Church  not  recognized  by  them  and 
questionable  as  to  doctrine,  how  can  that  Church  be  justly 
charged  with  sacrilege? 

THE  LACK  OF  UNION  WITH  THE  EASTERN  CHURCH  IS  THE 
FAULT  OF  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

Three  hundred  years  have  elapsed  since  the  Anglican 
Church  has  parted  with  Rome.  She  surely  has  had 
plenty  of  time  to  have  pressed  her  case  before  the  four 
Eastern  Patriarchates.  She  even  in  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal portion  of  the  Anglican  Church  since  her  reorgan- 
ization under  the  ‘‘Declaration  of  Independence’'  of  the 


58 


United  States  might  have  taken  active  steps  in  her  Gen- 
eral Convention  and  pushed  the  matter  to  some  decisive 
end.  She  has  made  very  strong  overtures  to  Protestant 
sects  in  this  country.  She  has  almost  pleaded  with  them. 
She  has  lost  no  opportunity  to  send  committees  to  their 
Confederate  gatherings.*^  Why  has  she  not  gone  out  of 
her  way  before  now  to  the  Holy  Eastern  Church? 
America  has  had  no  chain  around  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church’s  neck  to  say  ‘'you  must  have  nothing  to  do 
with  Russia.”  In  fact  the  United  States,  to  the  contrary, 
has  pushed  the  Holy  Eastern  Church  right  up  against 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  in  the  person  of  the  Russian 
Church,  for  she  purchased  Russian  territory.  A thou- 
sand times  has  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  been  in- 
sulted by  the  Protestant  Sects.  A thousand  times  has 
she  unintentionally  insulted  them.  They  now  are  getting 
more  polished  one  toward  the  other.  I am  glad  to  see  it. 
Bishop  Doane,  though  he  does  not  believe  in  Presby- 
terian orders,  invited  a Presbyterian  minister  into  the 
sanctuary  of  his  cathedral  and  permitted  him  to  preach 
the  Gospel  after  the  Presbyterian  fashion  to  Episcopal 
clergy  and  laity.**  What,  is  not  this  sacrilege?  Suppos- 
ing the  Presbyterian  preacher  should  have  poured  out 
Calvinism  and  heresy  and  perverted  some  of  Bishop 
Doane’s  sheep,  lambs  and  under  shepherds?  I myself 

committee  was  appointed  by  the  General  Convention  of 
1904  to  attend  the  Confederation  of  Protestant  churches  in  York. 
This  committee  attended  and  welded  the  P.  E.  Church  to  the 
Confederation  of  Protestants  in  matters  not  affecting  Doctrine. 

^^Bishop  Doane  was  one  of  the  committee  to  the  Protestant 
Confederation. 


59 


have  listened  to  the  Presbyterian,  Rev.  Dr.  John  Hall, 
preach  in  the  Rev.  Dr.  Stephen  Tyng’s  Church*®  (St. 
George’s,  New  York).  The  Holy  Eastern  and  the  Roman 
Catholic  Churches  are  more  careful.  They  guard  their 
flocks  by  permitting  only  validly  and  regularly  ordained 
Priests  of  their  churches  to  speak  for  them  in  their  sanc- 
tuaries. 

I have  little  doubt  but  that  the  Holy  Eastern  Church 
will  give  a speedy  and  decisive  answer  to  the  Anglican 
Church  the  moment  the  latter  proves  her  claims  as  being 
an  integral  portion  of  the  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church  founded  by  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, 
and  as  well  explicitly  defines  her  doctrinal  status  as  being 
in  accord  with  the  faith  of  the  first  seven  General  Coun- 
cils. But  the  Holy  Eastern  Church,  while  she  will  always 
be  courteous,  desires  no  side  approaches  or  quasi  authori- 
tative talk  on  such  important  subjects.  The  matter  is  too 
serious  to  play  with.  The  Committee  which  comes  to  her 
must  bring  the  proper  credentials  and  be  ready  to  meet 
squarely  and  frankly  all  controversial  points.  She  is 
willing  to  welcome  such  a Committee.  Her  claims  for 
respect  as  the  Mother  Church  of  Christendom  deserve 
better  treatment  than  the  insults  given  by  the  disrespect- 
ful journalists  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  Her 
membership  of  about  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  millions 
of  devoted  children  of  God  count  themselves  not  a whit 
behind  in  honor  to  the  eight  hundred  and  eight  thousand 

*®The  funeral  service  of  Chief  Justice  Chase.  Dr.  Hall  wore  a 
Calvinistic  gown  and  sat  until  he  began  to  preach  within  the 
chancel  rail. 


6o 


members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  Yet  it  is 
most  strange  that  every  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  remained  silent  while  their  newspaper 
minions  poured  forth  their  lies  and  folly.  Why  such 
silence?  Any  true  part  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church 
would  have  disciplined  such  audacious  editors.  But  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  real  authority  in  the  Protestant  Epis-. 
copal  Church.  Bishops  may  crush  an  outspoken  priest 
so  long  as  he  has  no  money  to  ''back  him  up/'  but  some 
Episcopal  Bishops  w^ill  never  fight  that  which  they  can 
use  so  long  as  it  has  financial  support.  The  god  of  wealth 
and  worldly  influence  is  a powerful  deity  in  Protestant 
Episcopal  political  economy. 

The  Prelates  of  the  Holy  Orthodox  Church,  who  have 
been  the  guardians  of  "the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to 
the  saints,"  may  not  be  acquainted  with  all  "the  western 
ways,"  but  to  a man  they  are  conversant  with  the  Doc- 
trine, Discipline  and  Worship  of  the  undivided  Catholic 
Church.  They  are  heroic  Christians — gentlemen  of  the 
highest  standing,  filled  with  the  love  of  Christ  for  all 
who  serve  him  in  sincerity  and  truth.  They  will  do  what 
they  believe  is  right  and  just,  even  if  the  heavens  should 
fall  as  a consequence.  They  are  of  that  metal  of  which 
the  Apostles  were  cast.  Let  us  hope,  then,  that  when 
the  day  for  reunion  comes,  when  God's  ways  are  known 
the  Anglican  Church  will  not  have  occasion  to  feel  pained 
over  the  "reordination"  of  one  who  was  once  a Cleric  in 
her  active  ministry.  She  may  rather  bless  God  and  your 
Grace  for  wakening  her  up  to  a sense  of  her  long  ne- 
glected duty  for  not  only  proclaiming  herself  as  possess- 


6i 


ing  a Catholic  heritage  in  the  midst  of  Protestantism,  but 
also  for  not  proving  her  claims  so  that  no  question  may 
remain  to  be  settled  in  the  eyes  of  the  great  historical 
Churches  of  Christendom. 

THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCHES  DISREGARD  FOR  ANCIENT 
CANONS. 

Yet,  I greatly  fear,  your  Grace,  that  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  does  not  see  herself  as  others  see  her, 

• or  as  she  appears  in  the  light  of  antiquity,  especially  Avhen 
she  appeals  to  the  Ancient  Canons  when  she  has  been  a 
little  disturbed  by  the  canonical  action  of  a great  his- 
torical Church.  If  any  one  were  to  compare  her  conduct 
of  life,  her  discipline,  her  administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, etc.,  with  the  ancient  canons  and  usages,  he  would 
be  astonished  to  find  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  which  has  criticised  the  Russian  Church  as  act- 
ing contrary  to  the  Canons  of  the  General  Councils  is 
herself  the  most  daring  and  reckless  violator  of  Apostolic 
and  Ecumenical  Canons  and  usages  amongst  bodies 
claiming  to  be  historical  on  the  face  of  the  globe. 

I hold  that  the  Russian  Church  obeys  all  Ancient 
Canons  in  dealing  with  all  the  acknowledged  parts  of  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church.  She  also  observes  all  of  the  an- 
cient ceremonies  connected  with  the  administration  of 
the  Seven  Sacraments  during  the  period  of  the  Seven 
General  Councils,  and  indeed,  to  be  still  more  ancient, 
during  the  period  of  the  first  four.  She  has  no  apology, 
therefore,  to  offer  to  any  Christian  body,  however  re- 
spectable, for  violation  of  any  rule  that  is  ancient. 


62 


But  now  turn,  your  Grace,  please,  to  the  Canons  bind- 
ing upon  the  whole  universal  Church.  I find  that  there 
are  twenty-four  (24)  Apostolical  Canons  which  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  disregards,  and  they  seem  to  be 
such  necessary  rules  of  the  Ancient  Church  and  of  the 
Church  of  to-day,  that  those  parts  having  a respect  for 
antiquity  observe  them.  And  while  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  is  quite  emphatic  on  the  Ecumenical  in  her 
so-called  regard  for  the  Canons  of  the  General  Councils 
I also  notice  that  she  disobeys  without  even  a blush  or 
an  apology  or  an  explanation  nine  of  the  Canons  of 
Chalcedon,  one  of  Constantinople  and  four  of  the  Council 
of  Nice.  To  be  more  explicit  she  disregards  Canons  6,  7, 
9,  10,  II,  13,  17,  18,  19,  20,  26,  37,  42,  43,  44,  45, 
46,  48,  50,  54,  59,  64,  74,  75  and  81  of  the  Apostolical. 
Also  Canons  3,  4,  6,  7,  14,  15,  18,  20,  and  21  of  the  Fourth 
Ecumenical  Council  (Chalcedon)  Canon  6 of  the  Second 
Ecumenical  Council  (Constantinople)  and  Canons  3,. 
5,  17  and  20  of  the  First  Ecumenical  (Nice).  If  she  has 
any  regard  for  the  Canons  of  Neo  Caesarea,  Antioch  and 
Laodicea,  she  disobeys  of  the  first.  Canons  i,  2,  3,  7 
and  II,  and  of  the  second.  Canons  i and  21,  and  of  the 
third,  Canons  6,  10,  20,  30,  3 B 33.  4B  48,  5^,  54  and  55. 

Surely  then  we  may  well  be  surprised  at  the  late  con- 
duct of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  There  is  an 
old  proverb  which  runs : ''Those  who  live  in  glass  houses 
ought  not  to  throw  stones.’’  The  Russian  Church  has  not 
been  attempting  anything  of  this  kind  of  a foolish  game, 
but  she  is  well  able  to  pick  up  and  throw  pretty  heavy 
ones  against  the  panes  of  glass  of  which  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church’s  ancient  or  late  edifice  is  erected. 


63 


Now  indeed  as  she  has  convulsively  appealed  to  an- 
tiquity, it  may  be  your  Grace’s  privilege  to  nail  her  to 
the  past.  By  doing  so  you  will  have  done  more  for  her 
than  many  of  her  own  sons.  You  will  have  helped  the 
Catholic  party  within  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
You  will  have  been  the  angel  on  earth  to  carry  out  the 
answer  of  our  dear  Lord  to  the  prayers  of  all  those 
blessed  saints  whose  names  are  mentioned  in  the  calen- 
dar of  the  Churches  of  England  and  Ireland,  and  all 
other  portions  of  the  Anglican  communion,  but  which 
have  been  ruthlessly  struck  out  by  the  hands  of  those  in 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  who  loved  to  cater  to 
ultra-Protestantism  and  have  far  departed  from  the  an- 
cient paths  of  piety  and  reverence  trodden  by  those  who 
now,  as  ever,  plead  before  Christ’s  throne  for  His  Holy 
Church  on  earth. 

PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  INDEFINITENESS. 

But  I will  proceed,  your  Grace,  to  another  point  to 
show  you  that  though  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
believes  in  the  Trinity  without  the  slightest  question — 
possessing  even  a most  gloriously  arranged  service  for 
the  proper  worship  of  the  Divine  Majesty — yet  she  fool- 
ishly has,  as  in  the  Ordinal,  an  Alternative  Preface  at  the 
Holy  Eucharist  for  her  Trisagion.  Indeed  if  she  had  not 
had  some  trouble  with  one  of  her  leading  clerical  sons  in 
her  early  days  and  at  the  present  time  was  not  sur- 
rounded by  Unitarianism  this  might  not  mean  anything. 
If  even  the  Church  of  England  had  an  Alternative  Pre- 
face we  might  be  able  to  trace  through  the  Mother 


64 


Church  some  relationship  between  it  and  the  past,  but 
no,  she  stands  alone  for  not  even  in  the  Scotch  Com- 
munion  Service,  on  the  model  of  which  her  own  Com- 
munion Service  was  framed  through  Bishop  Seabury, 
can  be  found  anything  but  one  bold  and  unequivocating 
proclamation  of  'The  Trinity  in  Unity,  and  Unity  in 
Trinity/’ 

Her  first  Form  of  Preface*®  is  unmistakably  clear  as 
to  teaching,  viz. : — 

"Who  art  one  God,  one  Lord;  not  one  only  Person, 
but  three  Persons  in  one  Substance.  For  that  which  we 
believe  of  the  glory  of  the  Father,  the  same  we  believe  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  without  any  difference 
or  inequality.” 

While  her  other  Form*^  not  found  either  in  her  Mother 
Church’s  Communion  Service  or  in  any  of  the  Sister 
Churches,  reads  thus: 

"For  the  precious  death  and  merits  of  thy  Son  Jesus 
Christ  Our  Lord,  and  for  the  sending  to  us  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  Comforter:  who  are  one  with  thee  in  thy 
eternal  Godhead.” 

I do  not  intend  to  be  too  critical  or  captious,  but  I am 
persuaded  this  latter  preface  was  put  in  to  please  those 
who  did  not  care  to  be  forced  to  recite  a clear  and  dog- 
matic statement  of  the  Blessed  Trinity.  There  have  been 
such  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  old,  and  alas ! 

^®Book  of  Common  Prayer,  page  234. 

*’Ibid. 


65 


there  are  some  to-day/®  But  they  cannot  be  removed  so 
long  as  their  bishops  are  satisfied  with  their  apologies 
and  explanations,  however  heretically  inclined  they  may 
be/^ 

I have  given  your  Grace  a few  fair  specimens  of  the 
Anglican  Church’s  way  of  doing  things  and  of  express- 
ing herself.  She  defines  and  is  explicit  for  those  who 
desire  explicitness  and  leaves  herself  nebulistic  enough 
for  those  who  do  not  care  to  be  dogmatic.  Thus  within 
her  fold  there  can  be  gathered  members  from  every  sect 
of  Protestantism  who  are  willing  to  accept  two  Sacra- 
ments as  generally  necessary  to  Salvation,  that  is  to  say. 
Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  Our  Lord.®®  All  that  is  re- 
quired of  a layman  as  a test  of  Faith,  is  to  believe  in  the 
‘'Apostles’  Creed.”  This  is  used  as  the  Baptismal  Sym- 
bol but  in  reciting  this  he  may  say  of  Christ  instead  of 
“He  descended  into  hell”  the  alternative  “He  went  into 
the  place  of  departed  spirits.”®*  He,  too,  has  permission 

“Bishop  Seymour  preaching  at  the  consecration  of  Bishop 
Gailor  said  that  the  Church  was  ^‘honeycombed  with  infidelity/’ 
Great  protests  were  made  against  the  election  of  Phillips  Brooks 
to  the  episcopate  of  Massachusetts. 

“Rev.  Dr.  Heber  Newton  of  New  York  City,  and  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Crapsey  of  Rochester  have  both  had  the  protection  of  their 
Bishops.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Rainsford  of  New  York  City  has  been 
cut  off  from  preaching  for  the  St.  Andrew  Brotherhood,  on  the 
alleged  charge  of  denying  the  necessity  of  the  Atonement  Bishop 
Potter,  however,  has  not  inhibited  him,  nor  Bishop  Whitaker. 
Since  writing  this  note  the  Rev.  Dr.  Crapsey  has  been  tried  and 
condemned  for  heresy. 

“^Church  Catechism  of  the  P.  E.  Church.  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  page  270. 

®Tublic  Baptism  of  Infants,  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  page  248, 
also  in  all  of  her  forms  of  Baptism. 

®^Morning  Prayers  P.  E.  Church,  page  1 1 ; also  in  Evening 
Prayers,  page  25. 


66 


to  compel  the  Priest  to  omit  the  sign  of  the  Cross“  in  the 
administration  to  him  or  to  his  children  of  Holy  Bap- 
tism, and  if  he  has  any  further  scruples  as  to  the  mode 
of  the  presence  of  Our  Dear  Lord  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
he  may  be  told  that,  while  the  Church  of  England  says 
in  her  Church  Catechism  that  Christ  is  Verily  and  in- 
deed taken  and  received’’'^^  therein  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  uses  a milder  expression  to  wit : ''Spiritually 
taken  and  received,’’  which  expression  may  suit  any  sect 
or  party. 

THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH  AN  ANTITHESIS  TO  CHURCHES 
AROUND  HER. 

It  is  a remarkable  fact  that  the  Anglican  Church  is 
never  colored  by  the  religion  with  which  she  comes  in 
contact.  She  rather  forms  an  antithesis.  For  instance: 
In  Scotland  coming  in  contact  with  Presbyterianism  she 
is  ‘‘High  Church.”  In  Ireland  she  has  had  to  contend 
with  Romanism,  therefore,  she  is  “Low  Church.”  In 
England  until  of  late  she  has  been  quite  Eusebian,  that 
is,  somewhat  condescending — ^looking  down  with  painful 
solicitude  upon  the  Dissenters  who  indeed  caused  her 
some  anxiety  because  of  their  missionary  zeal  amongst 
the  lower  and  middle  classes.  Now,  however,  she  is 
awake  to  her  mission  and  trying  to  regain  the  ground 
that  was  almost  lost  to  her  in  some  quarters.  Her  Catho- 
lic party  is  filled  with  holy  and  zealous  members  who 

“^Public  Baptism  of  Infants,  page  249,  and  in  all  other  forms  of 
Baptism. 

“^Compare  Catechism  of  the  Church  of  England  with  that  of  the 
P.  E.  Church,  page  270,  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 


6; 


come  very  near  to  the  souls  of  men  while  her  Evangelical 
or  ‘'Low  Church'’  party  expound  the  Gospel  with  Apos- 
tolic earnestness  though  lax  in  Ritual  Observances. 
Those  who  now  are  subservient  to  State  influence  in 
England  are  of  the  “Broad  Church"  party — but  their 
breadth  of  thought  consists  chiefly  in  trying  to  shatter  old 
time  respect  for  the  miraculous  in  religion  and  the  tradi- 
tional reverence  for  the  Bible.  The  Church  in  the  United 
States,  though  having  the  three  schools  of  thought  in  her 
midst,  is  remarkable  for  the  fact  that  the  “Low  Church" 
as  well  as  “the  High"  observes  the  Fasts  and  Festivals 
and  so  also  does  “the  Broad  Church"  party — and,  strange 
to  say,  within  the  last  twenty-five  years  in  nearly  every 
church  the  Western  Colors  have  come  to  be  used  for 
vestments,  at  least  the  stoles,  and  altar  hangings,  etc. 
Congregations  in  the  United  States  are  frequently  found 
to  be  more  Catholic  than  their  Rectors — ^but  the  whole 
tendency  of  the  Church  is  to  be  “High"  and  devoted  “to 
decency  and  order"  in  public  worship.  The  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  is  marked  by  much  zeal  in  the  United 
States  and  comprises  within  her  fold  a greater  amount  of 
wealth  than  any  other  religious  body. 

DIFFERENT  SCHOOLS  OF  THOUGHT. 

I may  as  well  explain  just  what  I mean  by  “High 
Churchmanship,"  “Broad  Churchmanship,"  and  “Low 
Churchmanship"  and  indeed  it  would  be  well  to  add,  per- 
haps, “Ritualists"  in  the  list. 

''High  Churchmen'  are  those  who  are  strenuous  de- 
fenders of  “the  necessity  of  Sacramental  Grace,  and  of 


68 


Apostolic  Orders.’’  They  are  not  necessarily  Ritualists. 
In  fact  such  men  as  Pusey  and  Keble  in  England,  so  far 
as  vestments  were  concerned,  would  appear  almost  on 
the  list  of  ‘'Low  Churchmen.”  The  great  body  of  the 
clergy  of  the  Anglican  Church  to-day  are  High  Church 
and  have  a great  tendency  toward  Ritualism*. 

''Broad  Churchmen''  first  came  into  view  at  the  Restor- 
ation of  the  Royal  Power  in  England  in  the  days  of 
Charles  II.  They  have  had  in  their  midst  in  the  past  and 
there  are  not  wanting  now,  men  of  very  great  ability. 
They  aimed  and  still  aim  more  or  less  to  keep  out  conten- 
tion by  specially  dwelling  on  great  moral  truths  and  pass- 
ing almost  entirely  over  doctrinal  teaching.  Of  late  the 
"Higher  Critics”  are  chiefly  "Broad  Churchmen”  and  are 
looked  upon  with  suspicion  so  far  as  their  respect  for 
miracles  and  inspiration  is  concerned. 

"Lozv  Churchmen"  have  been  and  are  still  successors 
of  the  Puritan  school  of  thought.  They  are  either  Cal- 
vinistic  or  Zwinglian  in  views.  The  Holy  Communion 
to  them  is  "the  reception  of  consecrated  Bread  and 
Wine,”  which  only  puts  them  "in  mind  of  Christ.”  "Ab- 
solution” is  with  them  merely  declarative.  Baptism  is  gen- 
erally disassociated  from  all  idea  of  sacramental  grace 
and  is  regarded  only  as  a ceremonial  admission  into  the 
visible  Church.  The  three  Orders  of  the  Ministry  Low 
Churchmen  have  maintained  to  be  convenient  but  not  in- 
dispensably necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  Church. 

A Ritualist  is  one  who  lays  special  stress  upon  the  so- 
called  right  performance  of  the  Mass.  The  members  of 
this  school  are  a wing  of  "the  Catholic  Party,”  but  they 


69 

are  not  men  of  great  depth.  They  frequently  drop  into 
the  Roman  Church. 

The  Catholic  Party  of  to-day  are  the  High  Churchmen 
of  olden  days  who  have  combined  with  a right  view  of  the 
Church  and  her  Sacraments  a proper  regard  for  an  ornate 
service  in  obedience  to  the  Rubrics  of  the  Church. — ^Un- 
like the  Ritualist  they  do  not  ape  after  Rome,  but  observe 
old  Anglican  usages. 

THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  MOST  LAX  IN 
DISCIPLINE  OF  THE  LAITY. 

Of  all  portions  of  the  Anglican  Church  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  is  the  most  lax  in  discipline.  She  exercises 
scarcely  any  discipline  whatever  over  the  laity,  though 
she  has  Rubrical  provision  for  the  same.  The  laity 
practically  govern  the  Church  and  the  Bishops  defer  as 
a general  thing  more  to  the  wishes  of  the  rich  laity  than 
to  those  of  the  clergy.  A man  had  no  need  of  being  bap- 
tized or  confirmed  to  be  a member  of  the  vestry  of  a par- 
ish in  most  of  the  dioceses  some  years  ago,  and  it  is  so 
to  a great  extent  still.  In  fact  delegates  being  elected  from 
vestries  to  Diocesan  Councils,  an  unbaptized  man  if  chosen 
as  one  could  have  the  privilege  of  voting  on  the  most 
vital  doctrinal  or  disciplinary  subject  and  have  a voice 
in  the  selection  of  a Bishop.  !5uch  a layman,  too,  could 
be  a ^Tank  heretic.’^ 

The  Rector  or  Parish  Priest  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  holds  frequently  an  unenviable  position.  He 
must  be  a good  yachtsman  to  steer  clear  of  trouble,  and 
alas,  too  frequently,  a moral  coward  or  a time  server. 


70 


There  is  a peculiar  game  which  can  be  well  played  by  a 
bishop  and  layman  and  in  which  the  Parish  Priest  in- 
variably finds  himself  defeated.  If,  for  instance,  a Rector 
displeases  a rich  person  in  his  congregation  it  is  soon 
found  out  that  he  has  ‘'lost  his  influence and  if  he  does 
not  feel  that  God  needs  his  services  elsewhere  and  seek 
and  accept  a call  from  there  he  is  “frozen  out’^  or  “starved 
out"'  while  his  Bishop  looks  benignly  on.  Or  there  is  an- 
other way.  A Canon  some  years  ago  was  passed  in  the 
General  Convention  whereby  a Priest  or  Congregation 
could  appeal  to  the  Bishop  for  the  dissolution  of  pastoral 
relations.  It  has  caused  much  trouble  for  the  Rectors  for 
invariably  the  disgruntled  layman  can  thereby  find  the 
ear  of  the  Bishop  who,  in  but  few  exceptions,  stands  by 
the  Laity  and  gives  the  Rector  a limited  time  to  with- 
draw to  another  field  of  labor. 

A successful  Priest  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
is  not  necessarily  a man  who  has  gathered  in  Christ’s 
scattered  sheep  and  has  fed  them  with  sacramental  life, 
but  the  Rector,  who  without  offending  the  influential,  has 
increased  the  finances  and  kept  his  Parish  out  of  debt. 

HER  JUDICIAL  SYSTEM  DEFECTIVE. 

Until  of  late  years  A.D.  1904,  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  so  far  as  her  judicial  system  was  concerned  was 
looked  upon  as  the  most  unjust,  cruel  and  unchristian 
religious  body  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  For  fear  that 
I should  be  misjudged  in  this  statement  I prefer  to  give 
the  words  of  others  (of  her  own  sons)  covering  this 
point.  The  great  scholar,  and  thorough  Catholic  of  his 
day.  Rev.  John  Henry  Hopkins,  S.T.D.,®®  son  of  a pre- 
siding Bishop,  says : “In  all  our  dioceses,  except  the  three 
in  Illinois,  the  systems  of  Church  courts  for  the  trial  of 

”'‘The  Church  Cyclopaedia — Appellate  Courts.” 


71 


priests,  deacons,  and  laymen,  is  incomplete,  providing  for 
the  most  part,  for  only  one  formal  trial.  In  nearly  all, 
no  trial  can  be  entered  upon  unless  the  bishop  con- 
sents. In  nearly  all,  the  Bishop  has  so  large  an  agency  in 
the  formation  of  the  Court — which  is  a Court  appointed 
for  the  special  case — that  it  is  quite  possible  to  organize 
it  to  convict  or  acquit,  as  he  may  prefer.  . . . 

If  injustice  were  done  there  could  be  no  possible  remedy. 

. . . His  oppressor  might  be  deposed,  but  he  him- 

self would  not  be  in  the  slightest  degree  relieved  from  the 
consequences  of  that  oppression.”  The  Rev.  Francis 
Vinton,  S.T.D.,  D.C.L.,®®  Professor  of  Canon  Law  in  the 
General  Theological  Seminary,  writes:  ‘^The  Presbyters 
and  Deacons  who  suffer  the  misfortune  of  being  con- 
victed after  trial  by  Ecclesiastical  Courts  in  a Diocese  in 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  are  the  only  men  on 
the  face  of  Christian  Civilization  who  are  deprived  of 
the  human  Right  of  Appeal.” 

I could  give  more  expressions  of  thoughtful  and  great 
men,  but  these  two  will  suffice  because  of  the  prominence 
and  learning  of  the  writers.  Since  they  have  written  on 
the  subject  chiefly  on  account  of  the  ^Trvine-Talbot”  case 
which  emphasized  the  need  of  a Court  of  Appeals,  there 
has  been  one  provided.  Still,  in  making  this  provision  the 
formation  of  Courts  of  First  Resort  is  open  to  the  same 
defects  as  those  to  which  the  Rev.  Dr.  John  Henry  Hop- 
kins refers.  A Bishop  may  still  with  others  conspire®*  to 

Francis  Vinton’s  “A  Manual  Commentary,  etc.  Canon  Law, 
P.  E.  Ch.,”  page  153. 

^Report  No.  5,  House  of  Bishops  Journal  of  the  General  Con- 
vention P.  E.  Church,  1901. 

“Though  conspiracy  was  condemned  by  the  Fourth  General 
Council  and  Canon  XVIII  passed  to  that  effect  with  a pen- 
alty, the  P.  E.  Church  has  neither  canon  nor  penalty.  In  fact 
her  Bishops  may  conspire  if  they  please  to  crush  and  depose  a 
Priest. 


72 


depose  his  Presbyter  or  Deacon.  If  the  case  is  well  tried 
and  the  compact  of  conspirators  cannot  be  overthrown  in 
their  evidence,  the  Court  of  Appeals  cannot  help  the 
convicted  for  this  latter  Court  can  only  review  the  legal 
aspects  of  the  case.  And  furthermore  the  poor  clergyman 
who,  perhaps,  may  be  on  the  verge  of  starvation  may 
find  himself  financially  unable  to  meet  the  expenses  of  an 
appeal.  No  one  can  be  punished  for  swearing  falsely  in 
an  Ecclesiastical  Court  against  a clergyman.  Evidence 
will  be  taken  from  the  most  disreputable  person.®*  The 
State  has  no  penalty  for  perjury  other  than  that  com- 
mitted in  her  own  courts. 

The  Canon  which  now  stands  for  the  trial  of  a Bishop 
is  actually  a Canon  how  to  prevent  the  trial  of  a Bishop. 

THE  REASONS  FOR  HARMONY  IN  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH. 

Now  it  may  be  asked  ‘‘How  is  it  possible  that  there  is 
such  apparent  harmony  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  when  there  is  found  within  her  midst  such  dis- 
cordant elements  and  so  much  heterodoxical  opinion?’’ 

The  Anglican  Church  as  a whole  is  an  exceedingly 
elastic  as  well  as  liberal  body.  Her  pendulum  in  the 
performance  of  the  services  may  swing  from  the  most 
ornate  Ritual  following  as  closely  as  possible  that  of  the 
Roman  Mass  to  the  ultra-Protestant  baldness  and  sim- 
plicity of  worship. 

The  Church  of  England  declared  and  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church®®  adopted  her  words  and  incorporated 
them  into  the  Preface  of  her  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
the  following:  Seeking  to  “keep  the  happy  mean  be- 

The  Fourth  General  Council  in  Canon  XXI  rules  against  in- 
discriminate testimony,  but  with  a P.  E.  ecclesiastical  court  it  is 
a matter  of  discretion.  She  has  no  canon  on  the  subject. 

®®Preface  to  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  page  5. 


73 


tween  too  much  stififness  in  refusing  and  too  much  easi- 
ness in  admitting  variations  in  things  once  advisedly  es- 
tablished, she  hath,  in  the  reign  of  several  Princes,  since 
the  first  compiling  of  her  Liturgy  in  the  time  of  Edward 
the  Sixth,  upon  just  and  weighty  considerations  her 
thereunto  moving,  yielded  to  make  such  alterations  in 
some  particulars  as  in  their  respective  times  were  thought 
convenient;  yet  so  as  that  the  main  body  and  essential 
parts  of  the  same  (as  well  in  the  chief est  materials,  as  in 
the  frame  and  order  thereof)  have  still  been  continued 
firm  and  unshaken/’  The  only  thing  that  there  has  been 
any  special  controversy  over  in  England  so  far  as  the 
performance  of  the  service  has  been  is  that  which  has 
arisen  out  of  the  proper  interpretation  of  what  is  known 
as  the  ^^Ornaments  Rubric/'^^  This  Rubric  reads  as  fol- 
lows : ^'And  here  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  such  Ornaments 
of  the  Church  and  of  the  Ministers  thereof,  at  all  Times 
of  their  Ministrations  shall  be  retained,  and  be  in  use,  as 
were  in  this  Church  of  England,  by  the  Authority  of  Par- 
liament in  the  Second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward 
the  Sixth.”  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  has  fortu- 
nately shifted  the  responsibility  of  settling  this  matter 
upon  the  shoulders  of  the  Mother  Church  by  saying  in 
the  Preface  of  her  Book  of  Common  Prayer®^  ‘'this 
Church  is  far  from  intending  to  depart  from  the  Church 
of  England  in  any  essential  point  of  doctrine,  discipline  or 
worship,  or  further  than  local  circumstances  require.” 
The  present  Episcopal  Robes  generally  worn  by  Amer- 
ican and  English  Bishops  are  those  which  were  and  are 
still  used  by  English  Lord  Bishops  in  the  upper  House 
of  Parliament.  Properly  speaking  Anglican  robes  ought 


®Tound  immediately  before  the  ‘‘Order  for  Morning  Prayer,” 
in  Prayer  Book  of  the  Church  of  England. 

®*Preface  to  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  page  VI. 


74 


not  to  differ  much  from  those  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
However,  the  former  robes  are  more  graceful  in  shape 
and  as  a general  thing  richer  in  fabric  though  more  mod- 
est in  ornament.  There  were  and  are  still  certain 
characteristic  vestments  of  each  of  the  Western  Churches 
of  which  there  is  no  necessity  to  speak.  I am  only  trying 
to  show  how  the  Anglican  Church  (and  especially  the 
American  daughter)  leaves  her  Bishops  and  clergy  in 
general  to  decide  for  themselves  within  certain  limits. 
While  this  has  some  virtues  about  it,  yet  it  certainly  has 
also  many  defects  and  is  the  cause  of  some  confusion  to 
the  mind  of  a stranger  who  may  pass  in  one  day  from  the 
service  of  a Low  Church  Priest  to  that  of  a Ritualistic 
one. 

Now  this  so-called  liberty  is  one  reason  for  the  notice- 
able harmony  in  an  Episcopal  Congregation,  Diocese  or 
General  Convention.  No  man  is  forced  to  accept  a set 
rule  of  Faith  (excepting  the  Creeds)  or  mode  of  perform- 
ing the  worship  as  prescribed  by  the  Prayer  Book.  The 
latter  has  Rubrics  and  the  Ritualist  sees  in  them  the 
‘^shair’  of  absolute  obedience,  while  the  Low  Churchman 
reads  between  the  lines  a ‘^matter  of  discretion’’  in  fact 
‘‘non-essential”  so  long  as  the  words  of  the  Prayer  Book 
are  said.  And  indeed  the  Church,  too,  does  not  require 
the  minister  to  have  two  whole  hands  to  administer  the 
Sacraments  or  two  legs  to  stand  upon.  Men  with  crip- 
pled hands,  wooden  or  deformed  legs,  men  deaf  and 
dumb  now  serve  as  Priests  at  her  altar.  Yet  taking  the 
clergy  as  a body  they  are  some  of  the  most  high-toned 
gentlemen  and  best  scholars  of  the  English  speaking 
people.  Your  Grace  has  been  assaulted  in  the  Church 
papers  by  those  who  are  not  counted  refined.  Of  course 
there  can  be  found  exceptions  therein  as  in  the  great 
churches  of  the  East  and  West.  The  greatest  fault  that 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  ministry  has  is  its  miserable 


75 


servility  to  wealth  and  fashion  and  which,  indeed,  is  apt 
to  crush  out  true  spirituality  and  also  tenderness  toward 
the  poor  of  God’s  Church. 

And  there  is  another  reason  for  harmony  and  that  is 
the  great  love  which  all  schools  of  thought  in  the  Angli- 
can Church  have  for  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  The 
Prayer  Book  and  Bible  with  their  collection  of  beautiful 
hymns  form  a spiritual  trio  of  inspiration  which  electri- 
fies all  schools  and  parties  when  they  assemble  in  Church 
or  in  Council.  In  fact  you  can  find  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  in  the  homes  of  very  many  sectarians.  I mean 
Presbyterians,  Methodists,  etc.  The  Sects  even  use  the 
Marriage  and  Burial  Services  of  the  Anglican  Church 
and  adopt  very  much  of  the  contents  of  the  Prayer  Book 
in  their  public  worship  as  well  as  copy  much  Anglican 
Church  ornamentation  and  ceremony.  They,  too,  now 
observe  many  of  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  prescribed  by  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer.  I personally,  have  seen  almost 
a revolution  in  the  last  thirty  or  forty  years  in  these 
respects  on  the  part  of  the  numerous  Protestant  Sects. 

Of  course  it  must  be  remembered  that  these  sacred 
books  of  the  Anglican  Church  are  all  in  the  language 
spoken  by  the  English  speaking  world.  Besides,  the 
marked  intelligence  of  the  Celtic  and  Anglo-Saxon  races 
demands  a book  in  the  hands  of  those  who  worship. 
They  grow  tired  of  looking  on.  They  are  too  nervous 
a people  to  keep  their  mouths  shut.  They  are  too  active 
to  either  sit  a long  while  or  stand.  They,  therefore,  have 
a form  of  worship  prescribed  by  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  whereby  not  only  every  faculty  of  manhood,  but 
also  every  limb  or  member  of  the  body  is  engaged  in  the 
worship  of  Almighty  God. 

The  Anglican  mind  does  not  like  repetitions  in  Prayers 
or  Litanies,  and  while  the  structure  of  her  services  is 
always  the  same  yet  she  has  left  wide  margin  for  enrich- 


76 


ment  with  hymns,  chants,  and  anthems  taken  from  Scrip- 
tures. She  prides  herself  on  her  chanting  and  instru- 
mental music.  Her  theory  is  that  everything  that  is 
good  ought  to  be  turned  to  the  glory  of  God.  This,  in- 
deed, may  account  for  the  very  great  number  of  ‘'nominal 
Christians,’’  or,  as  I had  better  say  “nondescript  Chris- 
tians” and  in  fact  bare  moralists  who  attend  her  services. 
They  delight  in  the  dignity  and  richness,  yet  simplicity 
of  her  worship. 

She  has  one  apparent  fault  to  one  who  likes  explicitness 
viz. : the  absence  of  the  same  in  dogmatic  statements.  In 
other  portions  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  there  is  but 
one  interpretation  of  a doctrine  and  one  way  of  per- 
forming the  service.  Each  child  of  that  portion  of  the 
Church  knows  just  what  the  other  believes.  It  is  not 
so  in  the  Anglican  Church.  Yet  strange  to  say  in  the 
same  pew  may  be  sitting  or  kneeling  five  persons  each 
holding  a different  view  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  and  yet 
each  equally  reverent  and  reading  out  of  the  same  Book 
of  Common  Prayer.  And,  too,  I have  seen  men  in  the 
same  chancel  wearing  different  colored  stoles — some 
black,  and  some  white,  red  or  green,  and  furthermore 
you  may  see  in  one  church  the  chasuble  and  alb  with  the 
other  Eucharistic  vestments  worn,  while  in  another  there 
may  be  found  only  the  cassock,  surplice  and  stole,  and 
yet  in  another  the  Genevan  “Black  Gown”  with  bands 
or  the  Black  Friar’s  Robe  during  the  delivery  of  the  ser- 
mon. However,  the  great  majority  of  clergy  and  churches 
are  adopting  more  settled  customs  and  greater  harmony 
in  “non-essentials”  as  they  speak  of  all  things  excepting 
“the  Creeds”  and  “Liturgy”  or  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

I may  be  pardoned  at  this  point  to  briefly  call  your  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  is 
chiefly  a compilation  so  far  as  morning  and  evening 
prayers  are  concerned  from  the  “Book  of  Hours,”  and 


77 


thus  it  has  some  undercurrent  of  magnetic  influence  in 
drawing  together  those  who  are  specially  fond  of  the 
ancient  ways,  prayers  and  supplications  as  well  as  the 
Te  Deum  and  Doxologies,  while  on  the  other  hand  there 
is  much  that  is  modern  in  these  services  or  at  least  old 
prayers  are  modernized  and  therefore  those  who  may 
love  the  past  and  its  sacredness  as  well  as  those  who  be- 
lieve in  being  ‘'up  with  the  age'^  have  no  difficulty  in 
using  this  Book.  She  also  has  aimed  to  gather  into  her 
Prayer  Book  the  best  from  all  the  “uses’’  common  in 
England  before  the  Reformation  “in  saying  and  singing,” 
viz. : from  those  of  Salisbury,  Hereford,  Bangor,  York 
and  Lincoln,  Perhaps  it  is  this  example  of  diversity  in 
unity  that  has  set  her  children  the  example  of  unity  in 
diversity. 

Your  Grace,  I have  written  to  you  in  great  length 
without  any  intention  of  literary  merit.  My  letter  after 
all  has  had  only  one  intention,  viz. : to  point  out  to  you 
the  actual  state  of  affairs  so  far  as  I know  of  them 
within  a Church  which  claims  for  herself  Apostolicity 
and  Catholicity. 

I would  not  do  the  Anglican  Church  a wrong.  I 
would  not  any  more  than  I would  cut  off  this  hand  which 
holds  the  pen  by  which  I communicate  my  thoughts  to 
your  Grace  in  black  and  white,  withhold  one  truth  or 
hide  away  one  merit  of  which  she  glories.  On  the  con- 
trary I trust  my  very  frankness  may  be  the  cause  of 
stirring  up  a spirit  of  interest  on  the  part  of  the  Holy 
Orthodox  Church  so  that  the  Anglican  claims  may  be 
fairly  and  quickly  weighed  and  that  the  Saviour’s  prayer, 
so  far  as  the  Anglican  Church  and  the  Holy  Orthodox  at 
least  are  concerned,  may  be  fulfilled — “that  they  all  may 
be  one.” 

Meanwhile  (may  I be  pardoned  for  even  suggesting?) 
the  Holy  Orthodox  Church  under  your  Archiepiscopal 


78 


government  has  a great  and  blessed  work  to  do  in  the 
United  States.  Of  all  parts  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church 
the  Holy  Orthodox  Church’s  work,  let  me  emphasize,  is 
THAT  OF  THE  MOST  IMPORTANT.  She  is  the  Mother 
Church  of  Christendom.  Her  lamps,  therefore,  ought  to 
be  kept  filled,  the  wicks  trimmed  and  always  burning. 
Her  priests  to  a man  ought  to  be  conversant  with  the 
ways,  language  and  all  things  of  the  Western  world. 
Here  is  the  table  land  for  unification.  Here  is  the  plat- 
form where  with  one  tongue  the  diversities  of  languages 
of  Babel  shall  be  driven  forever  away  as  marks  of  divi- 
sion, or  reasons  for  a lack  of  love  one  toward  another. 

In  the  Providence  of  God  you.  Most  Reverend  Sir,  have 
been  selected  as  the  loving,  gentle  shepherd  whom  we 
of  your  fold  revere  and  love  and  follow  in  humble  and 
childlike  godly  submission  for  we  feel  that,  though  you 
are  our  gentle  Chief  Shepherd,  still  you  are  our  firm  and 
masterful  as  well  as  intrepid  leader. 

May  God  spare  you  length  of  years  ; and  oh,  may  he  pro- 
long your  days  in  the  midst  of  this  Western  World  until 
you  have  truly  fulfilled  the  mission  unto  which  Christ  has 
appointed  you,  for  not  unto  Rome,  but  to  Constan- 
tinople must  the  world  look  for  the  old,  well  beaten  path 
which  leads  to  the  Jerusalem  on  earth  where  Christ  died, 
rose,  and  from  whence  He  ascended  to  the  Jerusalem 
which  is  on  High — the  Mother  of  us  all. 

Realizing  that  I am  the  least  of  your  children  in  the 
faith,  still  I beg  to  have  the  honor  not  to  be  a whit  behind 
the  greatest  in  love  and  obedience  as 

Your  son  and  servant, 

Ingram  N.  W.  Irvine. 


APPENDIX  I. 


HENRY  VIII.  AND  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND. 

By  the  Right  Rev.  George  F.  Seymour,  D.D.^  LL.D., 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Springfield. 


Springfield,  111.,  May  26,  1906. 
Rev.  I.  N.  W.  Irvine,  D.D. 

St.  Nicholas’  Cathedral,  97th  St., 

New  York  City. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Brother: — In  response  to  your  re- 
quest for  an  article  for  your  review,  I send  the  enclosed. 
I am  as  anxious  for  Christian  unity  as  any  one  could  pos- 
sibly be  and  hence,  at  your  request,  I place  the  enclosed  at 
your  disposal. 

With  best  wishes. 

Faithfully  yours, 
GEORGE  F.  SEYMOUR. 

The  Church  of  God  has  its  genesis  directly  from  God. 
The  eternal  Son,  after  He  had  risen  from  the  dead  and 
shortly  before  He  ascended  into  Heaven,  gave  to  His 
Church  its  charter  and  vested  its  government  under  Him- 
self as  the  Head  in  a corporation  of  eleven  men. 

The  Holy  Ghost,  through  St.  Matthew,  has  pre- 
served for  us  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  charter,  and  they 
run  thus:  (St.  Matthew,  xxviii.  18.)  ''All  power  is 
given  unto  me  (our  Lord  is  the  speaker),  in  heaven  and 
in  earth.  Go  ye  therefore  (addressing  the  apostles),  and 


8o 


teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  Name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I have  commanded 
you ; and  lo ! I am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world/’ 

Here  we  have  the  principles  of  the  polity  of  the  Church 
luminously  expressed  and  wonderfully  condensed,  as  only 
God  could  do  it.  We  have  the  Head  of  the  Church  before 
us  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  clothed  with  our  hu- 
manity in  its  glorified  condition,  filled  with  all  divine 
power  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 

Second. — We  have  him  as  the  Head,  the  glorified  Son 
of  man,  filled  with  all  divine  power  from  the  Godhead. 

Third. — We  have  the  work  laid  out  for  them  to  do, 
namely,  to  teach  and  to  minister  the  sacraments ; to  teach 
all  nations  whatsoever  He,  the  blessed  Lord,  had  com- 
manded, and  to  baptize  them,  which  implies  the  authority 
to  minister  all  other  sacred  rites. 

Fourth. — We  have  the  extent  of  their  jurisdiction,  ‘‘all 
nations.” 

Fifth. — We  have  the  duration  of  their  ministry,  “unto 
the  end  of  the  world.” 

Sixth. — We  have  the  limitations  under  which  they 
were  to  teach  and  labor,  namely,  as  to  the  former,  “What- 
soever Christ  had  commanded  them,”  as  to  the  latter  they 
were  to  work  in  co-operation  as  a corporation,  a solidarity, 
and  not  on  their  own  individual  lines.  “Go  ye,”  “baptize 
ye,”  “teach  ye,”  and  the  promise  of  official  continuity  and 
perpetuity  is  to  them  as  a body,  and  not  separately,  or  to 
one  alone — St.  Peter.  The  plural  number  is  used 
throughout,  placing  the  apostles  before  us  as  a band  of 
brothers  held  together  on  the  same  level  by  the  radii 
which  united  them  to  the  same  centre,  the  divine  Head, 
presently  to  ascend  to  heaven  and  seat  Himself  upon  the 
throne  of  God. 


8i 


Ten  days  after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord,  His  Church 
was  born  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  apostles  began 
to  act  under  the  charter  which  their  divine  Master  had 
given  them,  and  thus  we  are  enabled  to  see  how  they 
understood  it.  Nay,  more ; since  they  were  inspired,  how 
the  Holy  Ghost  meant  it  to  be  understood.  The  blessed 
Spirit  sheds  His  bright  beams  upon  the  first  believers  who 
were  instructed  and  guided  by  the  very  men  who  received 
the  charter  from  Christ’s  own  lips,  and  this  is  the  account 
which  He  gives  of  them:  ‘‘They  (those  baptized  on  the 
day  of  the  Church’s  birth)  continued  steadfastly  in  the 
apostles’  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  the  breaking  of 
bread,  and  in  prayers.”  (Acts  ii.  42.)  Here  we  have  the 
polity  of  the  Church  of  God  which  protects  the  faith,  the 
discipline,  the  sacraments  and  the  worship.  It  is  the 
apostolic  government ; not  under  one,  St.  Peter,  but  under 
all  the  apostles  as  a corporation,  as  the  charter  prescribes. 
It  is  the  apostolic  government  again  as  against  those  who 
refuse  the  apostolic  rule,  as  continued  and  perpetuated  in 
the  episcopate. 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  no 
man  can  found  the  Church  of  God.  It  was  founded  once 
for  all  ‘'on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets, 
Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the  head  corner-stone,”  and  it 
will  last  until  the  end  of  the  world. 

When  it  is  asserted,  therefore,  as  it  often  is,  that  “the 
Church  of  England  was  founded  by  Henry  VHI.”  (A.  D. 
1509-1547),  the  assertion  is  meant  to  carry  with  it  the 
denial  that  the  Church  of  England  and  our  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  which  is  derived 
from  her,  are  the  Church  of  God.  The  statement  is  in- 
tended to  discredit  our  claim  to  be  a part  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  to  reduce  us  to  the  condition  of  a sect  which 
had  its  origin  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VHI.,  about  A.  D, 
1534,  and  is  an  appeal  to  popular  ignorance  and  prejudice 
against  us. 


82 


I address  myself,  therefore,  at  once  to  this  allegation, 
and  inquire  on  what  does  it  rest  for  support  and  what 
misconceptions  give  it  the  faintest  shadow  of  plausibility  ? 
It  rests  simply  on  this:  That  Henry  VIII.  (A.  D.  1509- 
1547)  happened  to  be  the  monarch  on  the  English  throne 
when  the  Church  of  England  drove  Rome,  a foreign 
Church,  out  of  the  land,  and  refused  any  longer  to  sub- 
mit to  her  exercise  of  jurisdiction  within  the  realm;  and 
Henry,  for  personal  reasons  having  their  root  in  the 
usurpations  and  corruptions  of  the  Popes,  Julius  IL,  who 
granted  a dispensation  from  what  he,  the  Pope,  held  to  be 
the  divine  law,  for  the  English  King  to  marry  his  brother 
Arthur’s  widow,  and  Clement  VII. , who  wore  out  the 
patience  of  the  King  by  deceit  and  treachery  in  dealing 
with  the  divorce  asked  for  by  Henry  from  his  wife 
Katharine  of  Aragon ; for  these  reasons,  I say,  Henry 
VHI.  was  moved  and  stimulated  to  give  the  royal  con- 
sent to  the  enactment  of  canons  and  statutes  which  gave 
full  legal  force  to  legislation  in  Church  and  State  which 
made  the  Church  of  England  once  more,  as  Magna 
Charta  declared  she  was,  ‘Tree !” 

The  connection  between  Rome  and  England  which 
was  thus  broken,  was  purely  ecclesiastical,  and  was  a 
growth  which  had  its  origin  in  the  sixth  century,  when 
the  monk  Augustine  came  to  Kent  in  A.  D.  597,  and 
with  the  aid  and  influence  of  what  was  then  the  civilized 
world,  helped  to  plant  and  build  up  Christianity,  in  the 
eastern  part  of  Britain. 

Augustine  found  Christianity  in  Britain  when  he  ar- 
rived. It  had  been  there  since  a very  early  date,  so  early 
indeed  that  Tertullian  and  Origen  before  the  year  A.  D. 
200  allude  to  its  presence,  and  others  a little  later  give 
more  detailed  information  of  its  occupancy  of  the  island. 

It  is  more  than  interesting,  it  is  reassuring  against  the 
claims  of  Modern  Romanism,  that  Britain  is  indebted  for 
its  Christianity  to  both  the  East  and  the  West. 


83 


First  to  the  East  through  Gaul,  where  if  not  planted 
directly  by  Apostolic  hands,  strong  with  Pentecostal  bene- 
diction from  Palestine,  it  came  within  a hundred  years 
after  the  Ascension  from  those  who  had  known  the 
Apostles. 

And  secondly  to  the  West  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury, when  the  Italian  Mission  came  to  the  heathen 
Saxons,  who  had  supplanted  Christianity  in  the  eastern 
and  southern  Kingdoms  of  the  Heptarchy. 

The  Christianity  in  Britain,  which  confronted  Augus- 
tine, knew  no  monarchy  of  St,  Peter,  but  represented 
energetically  and  emphatically  the  position  of  St.  Ire- 
naeus,  who  distinctly  affirms  in  a famous  passage,  which 
is  on  everybody’s  lips,  that  the  great  Church  of  Rome 
was  ''founded  and  organized  by  the  TWO  most  glorious 
Apostles  Peter  and  Paul/’ 

These  facts,  the  existence  of  two  missions  in  Britain, 
the  Eastern  running  back  to  sub-apostolic,  if  not  to 
apostolic  times,  and  the  Western  coming  with  beneficent 
purpose,  to  convert  heathen  tribes  who  had  recently  in- 
vaded and  seized  the  southeastern  portion  of  the  island, 
and  driven  out  the  civilized  and  christianized  Britons; 
and  the  further  most  significant  fact,  that  both  missions 
alike  were  ignorant  of  the  supremacy  claimed  by  Modern 
Rome,  since  Gregory  the  Great,  at  whose  instance  Augus- 
tine went  to  Britain,  repudiated  when  Pope  the  title 
"Universal  Bishop,”  given  to  him  in  correspondence  by 
the  Eastern  Patriarch,  John  the  Faster.  These  facts 
demonstrate  the  absolute  soundness  of  the  position  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  of  our  Anglican  Communion  as  a 
part  of  the  Catholic  Church  against  Modern  Rome,  that 
the  Church  of  Christ  is  vested  in  a corporation  under  the 
divine  Lord  as  the  Head,  and  not  in  one  man,  St.  Peter, 
and  his  alleged  successors,  the  Popes. 

As  the  years  advanced  and  Rome  asserted  herself  more 


84 


and  more  in  presumptuous  claims,  she  wove  a network 
of  canon  and  statute  law  which  bound  the  nations  of  the 
west  to  her  and  her  Bishop,  as  the  alleged  centre  and 
source  of  mission  and  jurisdiction. 

All  of  this  legislation  in  Church  and  State  was  purely 
human  and  rested  upon  no  divine  sanction  whatever,  and 
hence  it  could  be  repealed  without  affecting  in  the  slight- 
est degree  the  body  of  Christ,  organized  and  living  under 
the  charter  which  vested  the  government  in  the  apostles 
and  their  successors,  the  episcopate,  a corporation  a soli- 
darity, and  not  in  one,  St.  Peter  and  his  alleged  successor, 
the  Bishops  of  Rome.  Now  all  that  was  done  in  the 
reign  of  Henry  VIII.  was  to  repeal  the  canons  and 
statutes,  which  by  human  legislation  bound  England  to 
Rome  and  set  her  free  of  foreign  domination  which  had 
grown  in  its  greed  for  money,  and  its  lust  for  power.  The 
pivot  on  which  the  movement  turned  in  principle  was  this, 
expressed  tersely  and  clearly  in  the  question  proposed  to 
the  two  convocations  of  Canterbury  and  York,  in  1534, 
as  follows : ‘‘Hath  the  Bishop  of  Rome  by  divine  right  any 
more  jurisdiction  within  this  realm  of  England  than  any 
other  foreign  Bishop?’’  To  this  question  the  answer 
was  made  by  overwhelming  majorities  in  both  convoca- 
tions, ^‘No.” 

Among  those  voting  in  the  negative  were  such  men  as 
Gardiner,  Bonner,  Tunstall  and  others,  who  were  after- 
wards conspicuously  opposed  not  only  to  the  excesses  of 
fanatics,  but  even  to  what  all  will  allow  were  salutary  re- 
forms. This  fact  conclusively  shows  that  the  first  and 
great  falsehood  of  Rome  in  her  assertion  of  supremacy, 
now  an  article  of  her  creed,  was  not  then  admitted  or  hel<^ 
by  many  of  her  most  devoted  adherents. 

Henry  VHI.’s  connection  with  the  reformation  in  Eng- 
land was  purely  accidental.  He  was  a very  immoral  man, 
but  he  was  not  so  bad  a man  as  was  Alexander  VL,  who 


85 


was  the  Pope  when  Henry  was  born.  He  was  grasping 
for  money,  but  he  as  not  so  greedy  for  gain  as  was  Julius 
II.,  who  was  the  Pope  who,  in  defiance  of  God’s  law, 
granted  for  a great  bribe,  when  Henry  was  a youth,  a 
dispensation  for  him  to  marry  his  brother  Arthur’s  widow, 
Katharine  of  Aragon.  He  was  voluptuous  and  worldly, 
but  he  was  certainly  excelled  in  these  vices  by  Clement 
VII.,  who  was  anxious  to  give  Henry  his  divorce,  but  dare 
not  do  it,  because  Katharine’s  nephew,  the  mighty  Em- 
peror, Charles  V.,  held  Rome  in  subjection,  and  more 
than  metaphorically  grasped  him  by  the  throat.  Henry’s 
connection  with  the  reformation  in  England  is  to  be 
traced  for  its  ultimate  cause  to  the  dispensation  granted 
at  the  instance  of  Henry  VII.,  for  his  son,  Henry  VHI., 
to  marry  his  brother’s  widow,  Katharine  of  Aragon, 
whose  rich  dowry  the  elder  Henry  did  not  wish  to  restore 
to  Spain. 

This  dispensation  by  the  Pope  was  on  Roman  prin- 
ciples a stretch  of  prerogative  since  it  suspended  what 
was  held  to  be  by  papal  canonists  a divine  law,  expressly 
laid  down  in  the  book  Leviticus,  that  a man  may  not 
marry  his  brother’s  widow.  In  later  years  when  child 
after  child  borne  to  him  by  Katharine  died  in  infancy, 
Henry  pleaded  scruples,  of  conscience  for  continuing  to 
live  with  his  wife,  and  alleged  the  deaths  of  his  children 
as  the  visitation  of  God  upon  him  for  his  unhallowed 
union  with  his  brother’s  widow.  One  is  not  inclined  to 
credit  Henry  VHI.  with  an  over-sensitive  conscience,  and 
at  once  sets  aside  the  plea  as  worthless,  but  He  Who  over- 
rules evil  for  good,  made  use  of  Henry  to  help  complete 
a movement  which  set  the  Church  of  England  free  from 
the  grasp  of  Rome,  and  enabled  her  to  preserve  her  life 
and  organic  connection  with  the  past. 

England,  in  Henry’s  time,  was  governed  by  two  parlia- 
ments, or  as  we  would  say,  congresses;  one  for  the 


86 


Church,  called  ^^convocation,’’  the  other  for  the  State, 
the  lords  and  commons,  commonly  called  ‘‘parliament.” 
Convocation  passed  canons,  the  Church’s  laws,  and  parlia- 
ment passed  statutes,  the  State’s  law.  Canons  and  stat- 
utes, when  Henry  came  to  the  throne  in  A.  D.  1509,  bound 
England  to  Rome.  When  Henry  died  in  1547,  these 
canons  and  statutes,  with  the  royal  consent,  had  all  been 
repealed,  and  there  remained  not  a single  tie  in  the  sacred 
or  civil  codes  which  united  the  English  Church  to  the 
See  of  Rome. 

In  all  else  the  Church  of  England  remained  as  she  was 
in  her  ministry,  her  doctrine,  discipline  and  worship.  If 
Christ  vested  the  Government  of  His  Church  in  one,  St. 
Peter,  and  made  it  a monarchy  to  be  continued  in  the 
alleged  successors  of  St.  Peter,  ruling  the  Church  of  God 
from  the  See  of  Rome  as  the  centre,  then  England’s 
break  with  Rome  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VHI.  was  fatal, 
and  she  ceased  to  live. 

But  if  Christ’s  words  are  true,  spoken  to  His  assembled 
Apostles  a little  while  before  He  ascended  into  Heaven, 
and  if  the  blessed  Spirit’s  record  of  the  very  first  be- 
lievers be  faithful  in  bringing  them  into  view  as  con- 
tinuing steadfastly  under  the  government  of  the  Apostles, 
then  the  Church  of  England,  when  she  threw  off  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  See  of  Rome,  returned  as  to  her  polity 
to  apostolic  and  primitive  purity  and  loyalty  to  Christ,  arid 
Henry  VHI.  was  employed  by  the  divine  will  to  give  legal 
completeness  to  the  orderly  methods  pursued  by  both  con- 
vocation and  parliament  in  repealing  canons  and  statutes 
which  had  sanctioned  the  Pope’s  alleged  jurisdiction  over 
England’s  Church,  and  seemed  to  justify  his  usurpation  of 
power  and  prerogative  over  England’s  people. 

To  say  that  Henry  VHI.  founded  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, is  either  a confession  of  gross  ignorance  or  an  ad- 
mission of  a deliberate  attempt  to  deceive.  Man  can  no 


87 


more  found  a Church  than  he  can  create  the  universe. 
Bad  as  Henry  VIII.  was,  he  was  no  fool,  and,  as  origin7 
ally  designed  for  the  Church,  his  studies  had  been  partly 
theological.  He  never  dreamed  of  founding  a Church, 
nor  did  any  one  in  his  day  and  generation  charge  him 
with  such  folly.  His  assumption  of  the  title  ^^supreme 
head”  was  qualified  by  the  saving  clause  “in  so  far  as 
God’s  law  doth  allow.”  This  assertion  of  headship  was 
necessary  to  bring  all  persons,  ecclesiastical  as  well  as 
civil,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of  the  realm,  and 
secure  the  punishment  of  crime  by  whomsoever  com- 
mitted, and  the  preservation  of  good  order  in  society. 


vlii;.Pi‘-?vi 


APPENDIX  II. 


A CONSERVATIVE  ANGLICAN  VIEW  OF  THE 
SACRAMENTS. 

By  Rev.  Randall  C.  Hall,  D.D.,  Hebrew  Professor 
(Emeritus)  General  Theological  Seminary. 


245  West  Forty-eighth  Street,  New  York. 

May  9th,  1906. 

My  Dear  Dr.  Irvine: 

You  asked  me  to  send  you  a brief  statement  of  what 
mught  be  considered  a conservative  Anglican  view  of  the 
Sacraments,  such  statement  to  be  founded  mainly  on  the 
language  of  the  Prayer  Book,  and  capable  of  being  writ- 
ten down  in  about  an  hour.  You  would  not  take  from 
me  a refusal,  and  so  I felt  constrained  to  promise  to  do 
what  I could  in  the  short  time  at  my  disposal. 

The  statement  is  likely  to  be  meagre  and  insufficient. 
To  understand  the  Prayer  Book  one  must  study  it  sympa- 
thetically, with  adequate  helps.  And  this  remark  applies 
most  emphatically  to  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.  One  of  the 
most  satisfactory  manuals,  so  far  as  I know,  having  a 
compact  statement  of  the  Anglican  position  on  the  Sacra- 
ments is  Vernon  Staley's  ‘^Catholic  Religion,"  published 
by  Mobray  & Co.,  London,  England. 

Of  this  I shall  probably  make  free  use  without  further 
acknowledgment  or  quotation  marks,  changing  at  times 
perhaps  the  phraseology  to  suit  convenience. 


90 


Let  us  start,  then,  with  noticing  a sentence  near  the 
end  of  the  Preface  of  the  American  Prayer  Book:  ''In 
which  it  will  also  appear  that  this  Church  is  far  from 
intending  to  depart  from  the  Church  of  England  in  any 
essential  point  of  doctrine,  discipline  or  worship/^  This 
would  seem  to  commit  the  American  Church  to  all  the 
dogmatic  teaching  of  the  English  Church. 

Now  as  to  the  Sacraments,  they  may  be  regarded  as 
the  divinely-ordered  channels  through  which  the  spiritual 
forces  of  the  Incarnation  reach  us.  The  term  Sacrament 
is  used  in  two  senses,  first  in  a narrow  sense  defined  in 
the  Prayer  Book,  p.  270:  "I  mean’’  (by  the  word  Sacra- 
ment) "an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and 
spiritual  grace  given  unto  us ; ordained  by  Christ  Him- 
self, as  a means  whereby  we  receive  the  same  and  a pledge 
to  assure  us  thereof.”  Of  Sacraments  of  this  kind  there 
are  only  two,  as  generally  necessary  to  salvation : that  is 
to  say.  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  (p.  270). 
In  the  above  sentence  the  word  "generally”  is  explained 
as  equivalent  to  "universally.”  These  two  Sacraments 
are  the  instruments  of  inward  life  according  to  our  Lord’s 
declaration  that  Baptism  is  a new  birth,  and  that  in  the 
Eucharist  we  eat  the  Living  Bread.  They  are  sometimes 
called  "The  Sacraments  of  the  Gospel,”  because  they 
have  their  visible  sign  or  ceremony  ordained  by  Christ  in 
the  Gospels. 

The  effect  of  Baptism  is  threefold : 

1.  It  remits  all  sin,  original  and  actual. 

2.  It  bestows  sanctifying  grace  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
(see  Baptismal  Office,  middle  of  p.  247),  and  endows  the 
soul  with  heavenly  virtues  (p.  248). 

3.  It  makes  the  recipient  a member  of  Christ,  the  child 
of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  (See 
second  answer  in  Catechism,  p.  266.) 


91 


THE  EUCHARIST. 

The  Holy  Eucharist  is  a feast  upon  a sacrifice. 
this  in  remembrance  of  me’’  (see  Canon,  middle  of  p. 
235)  is  very  commonly  explained  as  meaning,  ''Offer  this 
as  my  memorial  before  God,”  in  accordance  with  the 
Scriptural  use  of  the  Greek  for  "do”  and  "remember,”  a 
remembrance  before  God  and  not  before  man. 

The  Church  of  England,  also  the  American  Church,  in 
the  thirty-first  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  condemns  cer- 
tain false  ideas  concerning  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice.  This 
condemnation  needs  careful  explanation,  for  it  has  formed 
the  ground  of  unfair  charges  against  her  teaching. 

The  design  of  the  article  was  to  meet  false  ideas  which 
had  gained  ground  in  the  middle  ages  in  reference  to  the 
Eucharist.  For  instance,  Masses  had  come  to  be  regarded 
as  having  each  a value  independent  of  the  Sacrifice  of  our 
Lord  upon  the  Cross ; and  a most  debasing  traffic  in  them 
was  encouraged,  especially  for  departed  souls  that  they 
might  be  delivered  from  torment.  (See  more  on  this  in 
Staley,  p.  268,  etc.,  tenth  edition,)  The  article  condemns 
"the  Sacrifices  of  Masses,”  understood  in  the  above  sense, 
but  not  "the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass.” 

The  reason  why  the  Prayer  Book  lays  less  emphasis 
on  the  sacrificial  aspect  of  the  Eucharist  is  given  by 
Staley  on  page  272. 

The  Eucharist  is  the  worship  of  Almighty  God  by  the 
oblation  of  Christ  with  all  the  members  of  His  Body,  the 
Church,  in  union  with  Him.  After  the  consecration  of 
the  elements  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  objectively 
present,  i.  e.,  present  independently  of  the  faith  of  man. 

That  this  is  the  teaching  of  the  Prayer  Book  is  shown 
by  the  definition  of  Sacrament  on  page  270  of  the  Prayer 
Book  combined  with  the  statement  on  page  271  that  in 
the  Lord’s  Supper  the  inward  part  or  thing  signified  is  the 


92 


Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  This  is  confirmed  in  Article 
XXV.,  where  the  two  Sacraments  of  the  Gospel  are  called 
^^effectual  signs  of  grace’'  (efficacia  signa  gratiae)  in 
opposition  to  those  who  called  them  mere  signs. 

Where  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  the  whole 
Christ  must  be  present,  and  is  therefore  to  be  worshipped. 
Christ  is  not  to  be  divided.  (See  Article  II.,  p.  557.) 

In  the  Eucharist  Christ  is  not  appropriated  without 
Faith.  (See  Article  XXVIII.) 

The  latter  part  of  this  article  was  designed  to  meet 
certain  abuses  of  reservation,  etc.  It  does  not  wholly 
condemn  reservation,  etc.  Reservation  for  the  absent  was 
provided  for  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  1549. 

It  is  true  that  Reservation  was  dropped  when  this  book 
was  superseded  in  1552.  But  the  Act  of  Uniformity  then 
passed  styles  that  book  ‘'a  very  godly  order,  agreeable  to 
the  Word  of  God  and  the  primitive  Church,”  etc.  More- 
over, that  omission  does  not  necessarily  mean  prohibition 
is  capable  of  easy  proof. 

Accordingly  Reservation  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  is 
being  restored  throughout  the  Anglican  communion. 

OTHER  SACRAMENTS. 

The  term  Sacrament  is  used  also  in  a wider  sense,  both 
in  the  Prayer  Book  and  in  the  Second  Book  of  Homilies, 
though  not  defined  in  the  Prayer  Book. 

Article  XXV.  speaks  of  five  others  ‘‘commonly  called 
Sacraments.” 

This  designation  of  them  does  not  imply  any  disparage- 
ment of  them  any  more  than  “The  Nativity  of  Our  Lord” 
is  slighted  by  being  “commonly  called  Christmas  Day” 
(p.  58).  Unfortunately  the  wording  of  this  article  is 
liable  to  convey  to  a Catholic  a wrong  idea  of  the  teach- 
ings of  our  Church  about  these  other  Sacraments. 


93 


It  seems  to  refer  to  at  least  some  of  them  as  corrupted 
by  mediaeval  accretions. 

CONFIRMATION. 

Confirmation  is  the  laying  on  of  the  Bishop’s  hands 
upon  those  who  have  been  baptized  in  order  that  they 
may  be  strengthened  by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  seven  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  thus  imparted  to 
those  who  rightly  approach  are  named  on  page  275. 

PENANCE,  SOMETIMES  CALLED  THE  SACRAMENT  OF 
ABSOLUTION. 

The  Prayer  Book  speaks  of  the  power  of  Absolution 
in  Morning  Prayer  (p.  5),  in  Evening  Prayer  (p.  20) 
(note  that  in  each  case  here  a priest  is  demanded  by  the 
rubric),  but  in  the  Communion  Service  what  is  con- 
sidered by  some  as  the  more  emphatic  form  of  Absolution 
is  required. 

Private  confession  and  absolution  are  provided  for  in 
the  English  Prayer  Book  in  the  Order  for  the  Visitation 
of  the  Sick.  Though  not  in  the  American  Prayer  Book 
in  that  office  they  are  freely  used  on  the  principle  that 
omission  does  not  necessarily  mean  prohibition.  More- 
over, the  principle  is  freely  admitted  in  the  office  of  the 
American  Book  for  the  Visitation  of  Prisoners,  where, 
moreover.  Satisfaction  is  provided  for.  (See  rubric  foot 
of  p.  316  and  p.  317.) 

HOLY  ORDER. 

The  Sacrament  of  Holy  Order  gives,  through  the  be- 
stowal of  the  Holy  Ghost,  power  and  authority  to  exer- 
cise the  work  of  the  ministry  in  the  Church  of  God.  It  is 
bestowed  by  Christ  Himself  through  Bishops  only.  The 


94 


whole  structure  of  the  Prayer  Book  assumes  that  the 
authorized  minister,  whether  Bishop,  Priest  or  Deacon, 
is  the  organ  of  Christ  Himself.  (See  Office  for  Private 
Baptism  of  Children,  p.  254,  3d  line,  ‘hhat  He  [Christ] 
hath  embraced  him  with  the  arms  of  his  mercy.'')  What 
belongs  to  the  office  of  a Deacon  is  expressed  on  page  512. 

What  belongs  to  the  office  of  a Priest  does  not  seem 
to  be  so  explicitly  stated  in  the  Ordinal,  but  is  to  be  gath- 
ered from  an  examination  for  the  different  offices  of  the 
Prayer  Book  from  which  we  learn  that  in  addition  to 
what  the  Deacon  can  do  the  Priest  can  forgive  and  retain 
sins  (p.  522),  celebrate  the  Holy  Communion  (see  rubrics 
of  that  office  beginning  with  p.  228),  and  bless. 

It  is  true  that  the  word  ‘"minister"  used  throughout 
the  Marriage  Service  in  the  American  Prayer  Book  seems 
to  allow  the  Deacon  to  pronounce  the  blessing  at  the  end. 
The  Deacon  would  violate  no  rubric,  it  is  true,  but  no 
Catholic-minded  person  would  regard  it  as  a Priestly 
Blessing  when  pronounced  by  the  Deacon.  Moreover,  the 
Bishop  when  ordaining  gives  the  Deacon  no  commission 
to  solemnize  Marriage.  (Note  the  omission  of  this  on 
p-  512.) 

The  State  regards  Marriage  as  a civil  contract  and 
makes  all  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  whether  Priests  or 
not,  its  authorized  agents  in  performing  the  Marriage 
Ceremony.  This  fact  combined  with  the  scarcity  of 
Priests  in  the  early  days  of  the  American  Church  and  the 
consequent  resort  to  the  services  of  laymen,  may  possibly 
account  for  the  adoption  of  the  word  minister  through- 
out the  office  in  the  American  Prayer  Book,  thus  con- 
ceivably allowing  the  office  to  be  used  in  emergencies  by  a 
layman  commissioned  by  the  proper  authorities.  This  is 
a mere  surmise  of  mine  which  the  present  haste  does  not 
allow  me  to  verify,  and  I give  it  with  much  hesitation. 

In  addition  to  what  the  Priest  can  do  the  Bishop  can 


95 


exercise  higher  rule,  administer  discipline,  confirm,  ordain, 
depose,  also  consecrate  a church  or  chapel. 

HOLY  MATRIMONY. 

Holy  Matrimony  is  the  Sacrament  which  hallows  the 
union  of  man  and  woman,  and  bestows  upon  them  the 
grace  to  live  together  in  godliness  and  love.  The  office 
in  the  Prayer  Book,  combined  with  what  has  been  already 
said,  implies  that  God  performs  this  service,  and  that 
His  minister  for  this  ought  to  be  a Priest.  The  service, 
moreover,  implies  that  divorce  is  against  His  law.  This 
last  remark  does  not  apply,  of  course,  to  the  annulment  of 
a marriage  which  ought  to  be  pronounced  void  ab  initio. 
The  history  of  the  Prayer  Book  implies  that  only  persons 
baptized  and  confirmed  ought  to  be  united  in  marriage  by 
the  Church. 

UNCTION. 

Anointing  of  the  sick  was  provided  for  in  the  Prayer 
Book  of  1549.  It  did  not  appear  in  subsequent  revisions, 
and  fell  almost  entirely  out  of  use  and  has  been  called 
the  lost  pleiad  of  the  Anglican  firmament. 

There  is  a growing  conviction  that  the  loss  has  been 
most  deplorable.  Accordingly  it  is  being  gradually  re- 
stored throughout  the  Anglican  communion  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  omission  does  not  necessarily  mean  prohibition. 

SACRAMENTS  NOT  TO  BE  REPEATED. 

Of  the  above  Sacraments  three.  Baptism,  Confirmation 
and  Holy  Order,  are  not  to  be  repeated. 

As  regards  Baptism  this  point  is  incidentally  touched 
on  in  a rubric  (p.  252),  but  as  to  the  remaining  two 
Sacraments  it  is  not  noticed,  I think,  in  the  Prayer  Book. 
It  was  no  doubt  assumed  as  resting  on  both  principle  and 


96 

tradition.  (See  Article  XXXIV.  Of  the  traditions  of 
the  Church.) 

Now  that  you,  my  dear  Dr.  Irvine,  my  friend  and  for- 
mer pupil,  are  within  the  Holy  Eastern  Church,  I trust 
that  you  will  do  all  in  your  power  for  the  unity  of 
Christendom. 

Each  communion  ought  to  urge  its  members  to  join 
in  the  intercession  for  this  object,  and  to  search  out  and 
correct  its  own  faults,  remembering  our  Lord’s  dying 
Prayer : “That  they  all  may  be  one.” 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

Randall  C.  Hall. 


Note. — The  paging  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  referred 
to  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hall,  is  that  of  the  latest  revision. — I.  N.  W.  I. 


APPENDIX  III. 


ON  JURISDICTION. 

By  the  Rev.  Wm.  J.  Seabury,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesi- 
astical Polity  and  Law  in  General 
Theological  Seminary. 


8 Chelsea  Square,  New  York. 

May  28,  1906. 

Dear  Dr.  Irvine  : 

Your  friendly  note  of  May  17th,  with  its  kindly  refer- 
ence to  associations  of  former  days,  which  I also  recall 
with  pleasure,  was  duly  received ; and  I endeavor  in  com- 
pliance with  your  request  to  give  such  explanation  as  I 
can  in  regard  to  the  two  points  as  to  which  you  invite  my 
expression.  These  are : 

I.  The  right  of  the  Anglican  Church  to  jurisdiction  in 
England  and  in  the  United  States,  as  opposed  to  the 
Roman  claims  to  such  jurisdiction;  and, 

II.  The  existing  obligation  of  the  several  parts  of  the 
actually  divided  Church,  Eastern,  Roman  and  Anglican, 
to  conform  strictly  to  the  Canons  of  the  undivided  Church 
in  respect  of  jurisdiction. 

Individual  views  are,  of  course,  not  authoritative,  but 
I agree  with  you  that  the  candid  and  thoughtful  ex- 
pression of  them  may  sometimes,  even  in  humble 
instances,  be  of  use  in  the  promotion  of  general  under- 
standing of  difficult  questions. 


98 


I can  hardly  address  myself  to  this  endeavor  without 
some  reference  at  the  outset  to  principles  which  seem  to 
be  fundamental  in  their  relation  to  the  practical  points 
which  you  propose,  and  the  understanding  of  which 
seems  to  be  conducive  to  the  solution  of  difficulties  in- 
volved in  their  determination. 

In  the  fulfilment  of  His  redemptive  work,  and  in  the 
discharge  of  the  duties  of  His  mediatorial  office,  the  Holy 
Scriptures  show  us  that  our  Lord  founded  the  Church 
as  a visible  Society,  composed  of  those  who  professed 
their  faith  in  Him,  and  were  united  in  that  profession 
by  outward  observance  of  Sacraments  instituted  by  Him, 
under  a Ministry  of  which  He  was  the  Head,  and  to  the 
exercise  of  which  in  a subordinate  capacity  He  admitted 
others.  He  chose  in  particular  certain  men  whom  He 
called  Apostles,  and  having  kept  them  with  Him  in  train- 
ing during  the  time  of  His  earthly  Ministry,  teaching 
them  the  things  pertaining  to  the  Kingdom  of  God,  He 
devolved  upon  them  the  duty  of  extending  and  perpetuat- 
ing that  Kingdom  on  earth  after  His  departure,  com- 
manding them  to  disciple  and  baptize  all  nations,  assuring 
them  of  His  continued  presence  and  co-operation  with 
them  in  that  work  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world,  and 
promising  them  in  their  discharge  of  it  the  guidance  and 
aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  the  understanding  of  these 
Apostles  that  the  trust  thus  reposed  in  them,  extending 
beyond  their  personal  lives  and  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world,  belonged  to  them  officially — to  their  office  rather 
than  merely  to  their  persons ; and  therefore  in  view  of 
their  own  departure  they  made  provision,  as  our  Lord 
Himself  had  done,  for  the  perpetuation  of  that  Ministry 
which  He  had  given  them.  And  as  it  was  a part  of  His 
commission  that  He  sent  them  as  He  Himself  had  been 
sent,  that  is  with  power  to  send  others  also,  they  pro- 
ceeded to  admit  some  into  their  own  office,  and  to  con- 


/ 


99 


stitute  two  orders  subordinate  to  their  own ; which  ex- 
ample being  subsequently  and  continuously  followed  by 
the  incumbents  of  the  Apostolic  Office,  has  given  to  the 
Church  Bishops,  as  by  a later  usage  they  have  been  called, 
and  the  subordinate  Orders  of  the  Presbyterate  and  the 
Diaconate,  the  Bishops  being,  as  incumbents  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Office  of  Christ’s  constitution,  the  possessors  of 
the  ordinary  official  authority  of  the  Apostles,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  extraordinary  powers  which  were 
personal  to  them. 

If,  however,  the  Bishops  have  the  authority  which  the 
Apostles  had,  they  are  obviously  subject  in  the  exercise  of 
that  authority  to  such  limitations  as  attached  to  the 
Apostles  themselves  in  the  discharge  of  it.  Otherwise  the 
Apostles  must  have  conferred  more  than  they  possessed, 
which  would  be  absurd.  Looking,  then,  to  see  what,  if 
any,  were  the  limitations  attaching  to  the  Apostles  in  the 
exercise  of  their  authority,  it  is  manifest  that  certain 
limitations  were  involved  in  the  very  commission  which 
they  had  received — as  that  in  the  discharge  of  it  they  were 
ministers  of  God’s  will  and  not  of  their  own  arbitrary  pur- 
poses; that  they  were  empowered  to  act  in  spiritual  as 
distinguished  from  civil  matters ; and  that  a certain  sub- 
ordination was  due  from  the  individual,  not  to  other  indi- 
viduals, but  to  the  body  or  college  as  a whole ; since  the 
gift  to  each  of  an  undivided  equal  share  in  the  whole 
Apostolate  or  Episcopate  limits  the  individual  authority 
by  the  like  authority  of  all  others  sharing  the  same  gift. 
And  beside  these  limitations  involved  in  the  original  com- 
mission there  appear  others  which  the  Apostles  acting 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  imposed  upon 
themselves;  such  as  the  adoption  of  the  principle  of  the 
distribution  of  their  joint  work  into  certain  spheres  or 
fields  within  which  it  should  be  severally  carried  on.  The 
Apostles  had  from  our  Lord,  as  part  of  the  authority  con- 


lOO 


ferred  upon  them,  a common  or  universal  mission  into  all 
the  world ; but  in  the  fulfilment  of  this  mission  they  went 
not  all  together,  nor  did  they  act  each  one  without  regard 
to  the  other;  but  they  separated  and  adopted  limits  for 
their  ministry.  Generally  the  field  of  individual  work  was 
denoted  by  place,  though  in  one  notable  instance  the 
mission  seems  to  have  been  directed  toward  different 
classes  of  people,  irrespective  of  their  dwelling  place ; the 
Gospel  of  the  Circumcision  having  been  committed  to  St. 
Peter,  and  that  of  the  Uncircumcision  to  St.  Paul.  We 
do  not,  indeed,  find  in  the  Scriptural  account  that  the 
Apostles  were  so  limited  that  they  were  resident,  as 
Bishops  subsequently  were,  except  in  the  case  of  St. 
James  at  Jerusalem ; but  it  is  too  evident  to  be  denied  that 
the  principle  of  apportionment  or  allotment  of  work 
among  the  several  persons  equally  authorized  to  perform 
it,  which  in  time,  and  indeed  almost  at  once,  made  resi- 
dence in  his  See  the  characteristic  of  the  Bishop,  was 
acted  on  by  the  Apostles  themselves  in  their  settlement  of 
the  system  upon  which  the  work  of  the  Ministry  of  Christ 
should  be  accomplished. 

Deducible  by  necessary  inference  from  this  example  of 
Apostolic  action,  as  well  as  from  the  essential  relation  be- 
tween authority  and  limitation  upon  authority,  is  the  dis- 
tinction between  power  and  right  out  of  which  grows  the 
idea  of  jurisdiction.  If  power  be  absolute,  or  without 
limit,  there  are  no  conceivable  circumstances  in  which  it 
may  not  act.  If  there  be  a limitation  upon  power,  then 
the  power,  though  existing,  may  not  act  contrary  to  that 
limitation.  It  is  in  this  connection  that  we  apprehend  the 
distinction  between  what,  in  the  language  of  the  Church, 
we  call  Order  and  Jurisdiction;  Order  being  the  power 
to  do  the  acts  commanded  by  Christ  to  be  done — ^the 
power,  speaking  in  the  general,  conferred  by  Grace  to 
impart  Grace ; Jurisdiction  being  the  right  to  exercise  that 


lOI 


power.  His  power  of  Order,  including  the  general  or 
universal  mission  involved  in  the  original  institution  of  it, 
the  Bishop  has  by  his  admission  to  the  Episcopate:  but 
there  are  many  instances  in  which  his  right  to  exercise 
that  power  may  be  in  abeyance,  or  entirely  v/ithdrawn.  If 
a Bishop  be  lawfully  suspended  by  competent  authority 
from  the  exercise  of  his  office,  it  is  not  his  power  which  is 
impaired  or  lost,  but  his  right  to  exercise  that  power.  So 
in  general  the  laws  which  a Bishop  is  under  obligation  in 
his  spiritual  character  to  obey,  may  deprive  him  of  the 
right  to  exercise  his  still  existing  power.  His  order  is  un- 
impaired: his  jurisdiction  is  affected. 

The  laws  of  the  Church  determining  the  field  or  sphere 
within  which  individual  Bishops  are  to  exercise  the  power 
of  their  order,  determine  as  we  say  their  jurisdiction,  or 
their  right  to  exercise  their  power  of  order  in  such  a field 
or  sphere.  From  the  beginning  of  the  history  of  the 
Church  until  now  this  principle  has  been  recognized; 
and  though  the  application  of  the  principle  has  sometimes 
been  difficult,  and  difficulty  has  sometimes  produced  con- 
fusion, yet  the  principle  never  has  been,  and  it  would  seem 
never  can  be,  abandoned. 

It  is  most  noticeable,  though  not  in  the  least  surprising 
or  unnatural,  that  in  the  application  of  this  principle  the 
early  Church  made  the  jurisdiction  of  its  Bishops  a terri- 
torial jurisdiction,  and  ordinarily  defined  it  in  correspond- 
ence with  existing  civil  divisions.  The  Apostles  them- 
selves in  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  in  the  planting 
of  Churches,  were  wont  to  seize  upon  the  salient  points  in 
civil  jurisdictions  as  affording  presumably  the  best  centres 
from  which  their  influence  could  radiate ; and  as  the  city 
was  the  unit  of  the  Roman  civil  system,  the  distinguishing 
title  of  the  Churches  was  apt  to  be  that  of  the  Church  in 
such  a city ; and,  as  time  went  on,  that  of  the  Church  in 
provinces  or  countries  included  in  the  Empire.  And  the 


102 


recognition  of  such  territories  as  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishops  overseeing  them  was  an  exclusive  recognition, 
ignoring  or  denying  the  right  of  any  other  Bishops  within 
them  than  those  to  whom  they  lawfully  pertained.  That 
this  application  of  the  principle  of  the  distinction  between 
order  and  jurisdiction  was  universally  characteristic  of 
the  discipline  of  the  undivided  Church,  it  is  presumed  no 
one  will  dispute.  There  are  several  of  the  Canons  of 
General  Councils  which  might  be  cited,  but  it  may  suffice 
to  use  as  an  example  of  settled  policy  the  second  Canon 
of  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  as  translated  in  Dr. 
Fulton’s  Index  Canonum : ‘The  Bishops  of  a Diocese  are 
not  to  invade  Churches  lying  outside  of  their  bounds,  nor 
bring  confusion  to  the  Churches ; but  let  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,  according  to  the  Canons,  alone  administer 
the  affairs  of  Egypt ; and  let  the  Bishop  of  the  East  man- 
age the  East  only,  saving  the  privileges  of  the  Church  in 
Antioch,  which  are  mentioned  in  the  Canons  of  Nicea; 
and  let  the  Bishops  of  the  Asian  Diocese  administer  the 
Asian  affairs  only;  and  the  Pontic  Bishops  only  Pontic 
matters ; and  the  Thracian  Bishops  only  Thracian  affairs. 
And  let  not  Bishops  go  beyond  their  diocese  for  ordina- 
tion or  any  other  ecclesiastical  administration,  unless  they 
be  invited.  And  the  aforesaid  Canon  concerning  dioceses 
being  observed,  it  is  evident  that  the  Synod  of  every 
province  will  administer  the  affairs  of  that  particular 
province  as  was  decreed  at  Nicea.  But  the  Churches  of 
God  in  heathen  nations  must  be  governed  according  to  the 
custom  which  has  prevailed  among  their  forefathers.” 

It  is  to  be  understood  of  course  that  the  term  diocese 
was  then  used  to  denote  a larger  field  than  the  See  of  a 
single  Bishop,  but  this  consideration  does  not  affect  the 
evidence  afforded  as  to  the  principle  of  exclusive  and  ter- 
ritorial jurisdiction. 

The  example  of  the  early  Church  in  this  respect  has 


103 


been  generally  followed  in  subsequent  history,  and  in 
England  as  well  as  other  countries  the  distinction  between 
order  and  jurisdiction,  and  the  association  of  the  latter 
with  territorial  civil  limits  has  prevailed ; and  it  is  worth 
while  to  notice  in  passing,  though  not  to  discuss,  the 
bearing  which  the  civil  power  has  had  upon  the  designa- 
tion of  jurisdictions,  and  the  maintenance  of  Bishops  in 
them,  to  the  great  complication  of  the  whole  subject. 

In  the  same  way,  as  particularly  affecting  the  Papal 
jurisdiction  in  England — imposed  and  asserted,  and  to 
some  extent  though  never  wholly  by  Church  or  State  con- 
curred in — should  be  noted  the  claim  of  the  Pope  to  be  the 
source  and  fountain  of  all  jurisdiction  as  distinguished 
from  order;  a claim  based  upon  a narrow  and  arbitrary 
conception  of  the  power  of  order  as  consisting  in  its 
fulness  of  the  power  to  make  the  Corpus  Christi  Verum; 
whereby  the  Priesthood  became  the  summit  of  order ; and 
the  Bishops,  receiving  no  added  power  of  order  by  their 
Consecration,  were  admitted  merely  to  the  right  of  ruling 
in  the  Corpus  Christi  Mysticum,  a right  which  as  received 
only  from  the  Pope  might  also  at  his  pleasure  be  revoked 
by  him — all  of  which,  as  it  was  conceived  and  worked  to 
the  end  of  the  exaltation  of  the  Papal  tyranny,  so  also  in 
the  irony  of  history  furnished  a plausible  pretext  for  the 
development  of  the  later  Presbyterian  claim. 

It  is  not,  I think,  too  much  to  say  that  the  main  question 
between  England  and  Rome  has  always  been  as  to  juris- 
diction. I do  not  mean  that  there  have  not  been  innumer- 
able differences  in  regard  to  doctrines,  but  that  jurisdic- 
tion has  been  none  the  less  the  chief  consideration ; since 
doctrines  could  be  ruled  upon  by  authority,  but  the  acqui- 
escence in  such  rulings  depended  always  upon  the  pre- 
vious question  of  the  right  to  exercise  that  authority.  The 
whole  formal  process  of  the  English  Reformation  was  in 
repudiation  of  an  assumed  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of 


104 


Rome,  and  was  based  upon  the  general  denial  given  in 
answer  to  the  question  whether  the  Bishop  of  Rome  hath 
any  greater  jurisdiction  conferred  upon  him  in  Holy 
Scripture,  in  this  realm  of  England,  than  any  other  for- 
eign Bishop?  And  the  Divine  sanction  to  such  jurisdic- 
tion having  been  denied,  the  question  has  been  as  to  the 
lawful  or  canonical  right  to  the  possession  of  those  Sees 
wherein  jurisdiction  was  to  be  exercised.  There  have  not, 
indeed,  been  wanting  attacks  upon  the  fact  and  validity  of 
the  Anglican  succession  of  order ; yet  those  in  many  cases 
have  been  largely  complicated  with  doctrinal  questions, 
and  in  general  have  belonged  not  to  the  earlier  period  of 
the  controversies,  but  have  been  rather  in  the  nature  of 
an  afterthought  succeeding  to  the  very  thorough  sifting 
of  the  matter  of  jurisdiction. 

The  general  ground  upon  which  the  English  Church 
has  stood  is  that  its  Bishops  have  the  exclusive  right  to 
jurisdiction  in  the  Sees  in  which  they  have  been  lawfully 
and  canonically  settled.  The  attacks  upon  this  position, 
based  on  various  pleas,  cannot  here  be  particularly  set 
forth.  They  have  always  been  fairly  and  fully  met ; and 
in  fact  the  continuance  of  this  actual  jurisdiction  is  wit- 
nessed to  not  only  by  ordinary  historical  testimony,  but 
also  by  the  abandonment  on  the  part  of  Rome  of 'formal 
claim  to  the  particular  Sees  wherein  such  jurisdiction  is 
exercised.  Since  the  uncanonical  intrusion  of  the  Marian 
Bishops  into  Sees  which  were  actually  and  canonically 
filled ; the  subsequent  deprivation  of  those  Bishops ; the 
dying  out  of  their  line  of  succession,  and  the  establish- 
ment in  their  places  of  Bishops  deriving  their  order  from 
pre-reformation  sources,  the  Roman  claims  have  not  been 
set  up  for  the  possession  of  the  established  Sees  of  the 
Church  of  England.  The  adherents  of  the  Pope  some 
time  after  the  accession  of  Elizabeth  withdrew  from  the 
communion  of  the  English  Church  and  set  up  separate 


105 


and  opposing  altars ; but  they  neither  had  nor  claimed  as 
such  separate  association  the  possession  of  any  of  the 
Sees  of  the  Church  of  England,  nor  had  they  Bishops  of 
their  own  wherewith  to  fill  them.  They  were  under  the 
oversight  of  foreign  mission  priests  who  ministered  to 
them  as  in  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  Rome ; and 
even  when,  later,  steps  began  to  be  taken  by  the  Papal 
authorities  for  the  settlement  of  a Roman  Episcopate  in 
England,  the  Bishops  constituted  were  entitled  of  no 
English  See,  but  were  adorned  only  with  new,  and  some- 
times outlandish  titles.  So  that  upon  the  principles  of 
the  Catholic  Canons  they  were  clearly  intruders  into  Sees 
already  full,  and  carried  on  therein  a work  purely  schis- 
matical  in  its  nature. 

This  state  of  things  existing  in  England,  it  would  seem 
to  be  a fair  inference  that  the  same  state  of  things  ex- 
isted in  the  American  Colonies,  which  were  an  extension 
of  England  into  America,  and  the  Church  in  which  was 
still  the  Church  of  England,  and  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  English  Episcopate,  and  specifically  of  the  Bishop 
of  London.  When  those  Colonies  became  independent 
States  and  established  a civil  union  among  themselves, 
what  had  been  the  Church  of  England  in  the  Colonies  re- 
mained, though  necessarily  without  that  name,  the  same 
Church  in  the  States ; and  acquiring  the  Episcopate  from 
Bishops  who  either  traced  to  or  were  actually  of  the 
English  line,  it  followed  the  precedent  of  ancient  and 
general  usage  in  making  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  its 
Episcopate  coterminous  with  the  civil  jurisdictions 
within  which  the  Bishops  were  settled.  Hence  the  estab- 
lishment within  the  United  States  of  an  Episcopal  juris- 
diction which  extended  so  far  as  the  United  States  civil 
authority  extended. 

It  is  significant  of  the  force  of  a traditional  and  common 
policy  dating  from  even  Apostolic  times,  that  the  Church 


io6 


in  this  country  should  thus  pointedly  have  adapted  its 
jurisdictional  administration  to  existing  civil  institutions. 
What  the  city  was  to  the  Roman  Empire,  that  the  State 
was  to  the  general  government  then  in  the  early  stages  of 
its  formation  in  America : it  was  the  political  unit  of  the 
civil  system.  And  as  in  the  earliest  times  the  cities  were 
the  Sees,  so  in  the  distinct  organization  of  the  American 
Church  the  Sees  were  the  States  of  the  civil  union ; and 
while  particular  Episcopal  jurisdiction  was  settled  respec- 
tively in  them  (systematically  and  with  purpose,  as  soon 
as  the  exigencies  of  the  situation  permitted),  the  Episco- 
pal jurisdiction  of  the  Church  as  a whole,  consisting  of 
the  combination  of  its  several  parts  into  a common  union, 
extended  throughout  the  civil  union  in  which  by  the  provi- 
dence of  God  its  lot  had  been  cast.  So  that  upon  the 
principles  of  the  Catholic  Canons,  and  following  the 
precedents  of  the  traditional  association  of  jurisdiction 
with  territory,  that  Church  established  its  jurisdiction 
within  the  territory  of  that  civil  union,  as  it  then  stood,  or 
should  thereafter  be  established ; purposing  to  grow  with 
its  growth,  and  extend  with  its  extension. 

Certainly  this  then  was  and  since  ever  has  been  the 
claim  of  that  Church  which  after  the  war  of  the  Amer- 
ican Revolution  organized  itself  under  the  name  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America.  And  if  it  be  said  that  the  claim  establishes 
nothing,  since  anyone  may  claim  anything,  then  I ask 
upon  what  other  basis  than  that  of  a claim  with  con- 
current occupation  any  ecclesiastical  territorial  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  world  has  ever  been  founded?  If  it  be  an- 
swered that  the  basis  was  the  authority  of  the  Church, 
then  it  is  obvious  to  remark  that  this  only  shifts  the  ques- 
tion to  that  of  the  right  to  make  the  claim ; though  it  leads 
us  to  the  more  appropriate  question  as  to  the  priority  of 
that  claim.  The  field  being  the  world,  and  the  mission 


107 


extending  through  the  field,  the  ministry  of  Apostolic  suc- 
cession is  empowered  to  occupy  that  field;  and  the  object 
of  the  Catholic  Canons  was  not  to  deny  or  hinder  such 
occupation,  but  to  recognize  it  where  it  existed,  and  pro- 
vide against  its  being  disturbed  or  intruded  upon.  But  if 
it  be  denied  that  the  claim  here  referred  to  was  a prior 
claim,  it  will  be  pertinent  to  enquire  what  claim  was 
before  it?  Certainly  no  claim  to  a jurisdiction  in  ecclesi- 
astical matters  coterminous  with  the  civil  jurisdiction  in 
the  United  States  was  made  in  the  territory  covered  by 
those  States  before  the  establishment  of  the  ecclesiastical 
union,  nor  so  far  as  I am  aware  has  it  ever  since  b.een 
made.  Claims  adverse  to  us  are  only  in  part  on  jurisdic- 
tional grounds,  involving  a denial  of  our  possession  of 
order  and  of  that  general  mission  which  belongs  to  it.  In 
so  far  as  they  depend  upon  the  question  of  priority  of 
claim  and  occupation  and  are  properly  jurisdictional  they 
concern  the  case  of  the  Church  in  the  State  of  Maryland, 
and  in  those  territories  which  were  later  acquired  by  the 
United  States  in  what  is  known  as  the  Louisiana 
Purchase. 

With  regard  to  Maryland  it  is  a fact  that  Dr.  Carroll, 
the  Roman  titular  Bishop  of  Baltimore,  received  his  Con- 
secration in  1790;  the  Anglo-American  Bishop  Claggett 
being  consecrated  Bishop  of  Maryland,  in  which  State 
Baltimore  is,  in  1792.  If  the  State  of  Maryland  had 
stood  alone,  the  priority  of  Episcopal  jurisdiction  in  it 
might  be  said  to  belong  to  the  Roman  Bishop,  though  his 
title  is  not  significant  of  a claim  to  territorial  jurisdiction 
in  the  State  as  such.  But  in  fact  Maryland  did  not  stand 
alone  either  civilly  or  ecclesiastically,  being  in  both  kinds 
engaged  with  other  States  and  Churches  in  a common 
union  whereby  they  became  members  one  of  another ; the 
Churches  being  united  under  the  care  of  a lawful  Episco- 
pate able  to  provide,  and  then  in  process  of  providing. 


io8 


a Bishop  for  each  of  them,  and  for  Maryland  of  course 
among  the  rest.  The  settlement  of  Bishop  Carroll  in 
Maryland  was  therefore  as  much  a setting  up  of  altar 
against  altar  as  it  would  have  been  had  Claggett  actually 
been  first  consecrated;  for  his  claim  to  Episcopal  juris- 
diction was  made  in  a place  which  was  within  a recog- 
nized diocesan  jurisdiction,  part  and  parcel  of  a system 
of  diocesan  jurisdictions — the  Church  in  Maryland  being 
equally  with  the  Church  in  other  States  of  the  Union 
represented  as  such  in  the  ecclesiastical  union,  each  State 
being  regarded  as  the  field  of  a distinct  Episcopal  juris- 
diction, and  associated  with  the  others  in  a common 
Episcopal  oversight. 

It  is  true  that  there  were  many  members  of  the  Roman 
communion  in  Maryland  who  dissented  from  the  Anglican 
claim  to  jurisdiction  in  this  country,  as  their  predecessors 
had  dissented  in  England.  It  is  true  also  that  this  and 
other  kinds  of  dissenters  existed  in  other  parts  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  the  liberty  of  conscience  which 
they  exercised  in  such  dissent  was  an  inherent  and  inalien- 
able right  of  nature.  It  is  true  furthermore  that  ecclesi- 
astical jurisdiction  rests  upon  the  willing  consent  of  those 
upon  whom  it  is  imposed;  for  spiritual  authority,  unlike 
civil  authority,  depends  not  upon  force  or  compulsion,  but 
upon  the  constraint  of  a conscious  moral  obligation. 
But  it  also  remains  true,  nevertheless,  that  those  members 
of  the  Church  who  are  unwilling  to  accept  the  jurisdiction 
of  their  Bishops,  and  who  demonstrate  that  unwillingness 
by  their  voluntary  association  apart  from  that  jurisdiction 
with  or  without  the  supervision  of  other  Bishops,  are  in 
a state  of  schism  or  division  from  that  Church  which  con- 
tinues under  its  regular  Episcopal  supervision.  Such 
was  the  condition  of  those  who  had  separated  themselves 
from  the  Church  of  England  in  their  adherence  to  the 
Papacy,  and  such  continued  to  be  the  condition  of  their 


109 


successors  in  the  same  adherence  in  the  English  Colonies 
and  the  States  into  which  they  developed.  And  a system 
of  Episcopal  oversight  having  been  lawfully  and  in  fact 
established  throughout  the  civil  union  of  those  States  be- 
fore the  introduction  of  the  Roman  hierarchy  derived 
from  Carroll,  the  introduction  of  that  hierarchy  was  in 
itself  schismatical  upon  the  principles  of  the  Catholic 
Canons,  even  supposing  it  to  have  been  in  other  respects 
duly  and  orderly  established  in  accordance  with  those 
Canons — which  would  be  somewhat  difficult  of  proof. 

Assuming  what  I have  never  known  to  be  disputed, 
that  the  entire  Roman  hierarchy  in  the  United  States  is 
derived  through  this  uncanonical  and  schismatical  con- 
secration of  Carroll,  the  fact  would  go  far  tov/ard  settling 
the  regularity,  on  Catholic  principles,  of  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Anglo-American  Episcopate  in  those  parts  of  the 
United  States  which  before  their  connection  with  the 
Union  were  settled  by  members  of  the  Roman  com- 
munion. For  as  between  a formal  and  general  claim  to 
jurisdiction  throughout  the  civil  union  established  in  con- 
formity with  all  settled  principles  of  Catholic  Canon  law, 
and  a later  intrusion  on  the  part  of  those  who  have  no 
other  justification  for  their  want  of  Canonical  regularity 
than  the  authority  of  a foreign  Bishop,  there  ought  not 
to  be  much  difficulty  in  deciding.  If  the  American  claim 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  its  Bishops  stands  anywhere  in  the 
United  States,  it  stands  everywhere  in  that  Union. 

But  those  who  feel  that  priority  of  occupation  in  fact 
belonged  to  the  Roman  communion  in  those  States  which 
were  originally  settled  by  members  of  that  communion, 
may  do  well  to  remember  that  such  members  were  not  the 
only  inhabitants  of  that  territory;  and  further,  that  evi- 
dence seems  to  be  wanting  of  their  being  under  any  resi- 
dent Episcopate,  or  of  any  steps  having  been  taken  to 
provide  such  Episcopate  prior  to  the  time  of  Carroll. 


no 


I speak  as  to  this  under  correction,  but  I do  not  know  and 
do  not  believe  that  there  was  any  settled  Episcopal  juris- 
diction anywhere  on  the  American  continent  prior  to  the 
Scotch  and  English  consecrations  of  Bishops  for  this 
country  in  1784  and  1787.  Missions  of  course  there  were, 
and  possibly  Bishops,  but  I am  apt  to  think  that  if  any 
Bishops  there  were,  they  were  without  the  characteristic 
of  a settled  Episcopal  jurisdiction,  much  less  of  one  that 
included  the  territory  under  consideration.  I do  not  say 
this  contentiously,  but  because  it  seems  to  me  to  have  an 
important  bearing  upon  the  question  of  intrusion;  and 
also  because  if  I am  in  error  in  this  respect  I shall  be 
glad  to  learn  it. 

But  it  should  not  be  forgotten  in  this  connection  that 
apart  from  all  question  of  priority  of  occupation  as  affect- 
ing regularity  of  jurisdiction,  there  exists  the  standing 
objection  to  Roman  claims  that  they  are  based  upon  a 
mission  which  confuses  Catholic  faith  with  impositions  of 
Papal  decrees,  making  the  acceptance  of  both  of  equal 
necessity.  The  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  Christ  are  to  be 
the  successors  of  the  Apostles  not  only  in  order  but  also 
in  faith.  And  if  those  who  have  received  a valid  suc- 
cession of  order  have  succeeded  to  a corrupt  faith,  and 
require  of  those  who  would  be  saved  the  same  acceptance 
of  questionable  and  new  doctrines  as  of  the  undoubted 
Catholic  verities,  there  is  no  mission  of  Christ  that  can 
sustain  such  requirements;  and  the  jurisdiction  which  is 
claimed  anywhere  upon  such  a state  of  facts  is  at  best  a 
defective  jurisdiction,  and  good  only  in  so  far  as  it  is 
conformable  to  the  really  Catholic  mission. 

The  bearing  of  this  objection  in  cases  where  priority  of 
occupation  is  disputed  is  obvious ; and  in  such  like  self 
defence  it  has  always  been  used  against  Roman  intrusions 
in  the  Anglican  communion.  In  these  later  days,  too,  it 
has  been  used  as  the  ground  for  carrying  the  war,  so  to 


Ill 


speak,  even  into  the  enemy's  country,  and  in  territories 
undoubtedly  Roman  by  prior  Episcopal  occupation  grant- 
ing to  those  who  have  sought  relief  from  the  tyrannies 
and  misgovernments  and  extortions  of  the  existing  juris- 
dictions the  opportunity  of  preserving  their  faith  in  Christ 
in  connection  with  the  Sacramental  life  of  the  Church; 
an  opportunity  which,  in  the  straits  into  which  they  had 
fallen,  they  could  no  longer  have  without  such  help.  It  is 
an  extraordinary  and  exceptional  course,  claimed  to  be 
justified  by  extraordinary  and  exceptional  needs;  in  the 
letter  contrary  to  the  Canons  of  jurisdiction,  and  de- 
fensible only  as  in  conformity  to  the  law  of  the  general 
concern  of  the  Episcopate  for  all  the  members  of  the 
flock  of  Christ;  a law  which  is  bound  up  in  the  mission 
on  which  jurisdiction  is  founded,  and  which  when  applied 
in  properly  exceptional  cases,  supersedes  jurisdiction  in 
its  limited  and  territorial  sense.  The  consideration  of 
this  course,  however,  does  not  enter  into  the  argument 
here,  except  as  in  anticipation  of  a charge  of  inconsist- 
ency; which  charge  even  if  it  were  true  would  prove 
nothing  against  the  otherwise  consistent  claim  of  juris- 
diction within  the  national  territory. 

This  claim,  and  the  general  right  of  the  Anglican 
Church  to  jurisdiction  in  England  and  in  the  United 
States,  I have  now,  in  reference  to  your  first  point,  set 
forth  with  such  care  and  candor  as  was  within  my  power. 
The  position  of  the  Anglican  Church  which  I have  thus 
endeavored  to  describe  is,  in  my  judgment,  entirely  con- 
formable to  the  Catholic  Canons ; and  is  one  which,  if 
we  lived  under  the  conditions  in  which  those  Canons 
were  produced  would  be  recognized  by  the  authority 
from  which  they  proceeded.  It  is  a plain  fact,  however, 
that  the  rectitude  of  this  position  is  not  recognized  by 
others  who  make  the  same  claim  to  derivation  from  that 
authority  which  we  ourselves  make.  But  supposing,  for 


112 


the  sake  of  argument,  that  it  were  recognized  by  these, 
would  they  be  entirely  precluded  from  the  exercise  of 
any  manner  of  jurisdiction  within  that  territory  which  is 
covered  by  our  claims?  Apparently  they  would  be  so 
precluded  under  those  Canons  upon  which  our  position 
is  based ; and  the  obvious  consequences  of  that  situation, 
and  the  natural  and  charitable  desire  for  the  amelioration 
of  these  consequences,  lead  one  to  ponder  seriously  upon 
the  question  whether  these  Canons  can  now  justly  be 
regarded  as  having  the  same  binding  and  exclusive  force 
as  they  had  in  their  origin ; which  is  the  subject  presented 
by  your  second  point. 

Into  the  general  question  of  the  obligation  of  acts  of 
General  Councils  upon  the  Church  of  later  and  present 
times  it  is  not  needful  to  enter,  further  than  to  point  out 
the  distinction  which  exists  between  such  as  give  testi- 
mony to  the  unalterable  faith  of  the  Church,  and  such 
as  relate  to  discipline ; the  former  being  of  universal  and 
continuous  obligation;  and  the  obligation  of  the  latter 
being  dependent  on  the  continuance  of  the  conditions 
which  produced  them  and  which  they  were  designed  to 
meet.  The  rulings  in  regard  to  the  distinction  and  main- 
tenance of  territorial  jurisdiction  being  of  this  latter  char- 
acter, it  is  to  be  considered  that  there  was  in  them  a force 
proper  to  the  position  of  the  Church  in  which  they  were 
enacted,  which  could  not  continue  in  the  Church  occupy- 
ing an  entirely  different  position.  These  Canons  having 
reference  to  the  relation  of  different  parts  of  the  one 
undivided  Church  must  continue  of  obligation  while  the 
Church  continued  in  that  condition  of  unity.  But  no  law 
is  stronger  than  the  sanction  on  which  it  depends.  The 
unity  of  the  Church  was  in  itself  the  highest  and  most 
potent  sanction  which  could  be  had  for  the  laws  regulat- 
ing the  relation  of  its  parts  to  each  other.  But  in  the 
loss  of  that  unity  the  sanction  for  those  laws  is  with- 


drawn.  Each  part  of  the  Church  retains  those  laws 
indeed  as  part  of  its  inheritance,  and  in  so  far  as  relates 
to  its  own  integrity  it  applies  those  laws  to  its  several  por- 
tions with  such  sanction  as  belongs  to  its  own  entirety.  A 
breach  of  these  laws  then  in  that  distinct  part  of  the 
Church  means  an  exclusion  from  the  unity  which  such 
part  maintains  within  itself.  But  when  it  is  sought  to 
apply  those  laws  to  the  course  pursued  by  another  part 
of  the  Church,  claiming  and  applying  within  itself  the 
same  inheritance,  the  sanction  obviously  no  longer  exists. 
A disregard  of  those  laws  as  against  another  distinct  part 
of  the  Church  may  imply  exclusion  from  unity  with  such 
part ; but  exclusion  from  unity  has  already  taken  place  on 
other  grounds,  and  thus  is  no  longer  a penalty  for  that 
offense. 

As  a matter  of  fact  there  are  three  main  divisions  of 
the  Church,  each  of  which  claims  to  have  inherited  by  di- 
rect and  unbroken  succession  the  faith  and  order  of  the 
original  undivided  Church,  including  the  principles  de- 
termined in  the  age  of  unity  as  essential  to  their  preserva- 
tion. Whatever  may  be  the  rights  of  others,  the  Eastern, 
the  Roman  and  the  Anglican  may  fairly  be  regarded  as 
of  chief  importance  in  this  connection.  In  each  of  them 
the  principles  derived  from  the  Catholic  Canons  affecting 
jurisdiction  in  its  territorial  and  exclusive  character,  are 
applied  within  its  own  communion ; and  asserted  and  main- 
tained against  the  others  with  that  result  of  uncompromis- 
ing, yet  absolutely  inefficient  and  inconclusive  hostility 
which  might  be  expected,  and  which,  by  the  application 
of  those  Canons  in  the  state  of  division,  can  never  in  this 
world  be  pacified. 

In  all  this  long  continued,  exasperating  and  intermin- 
able hostility,  it  seems  not  to  have  been  considered,  or  at 
least  not  sufficiently  considered,  that  the  application  of 
principles  affecting  jurisdiction  which  was  made  by  the 


Councils  of  the  undivided  Church,  might  be  perfectly 
right  and  wise  in  the  times  and  circumstances  in  which 
it  was  made,  but  might  be  neither  altogether  right  nor 
wise  in  other  times  and  circumstances,  when  the  sanction 
of  the  common  authority  has  been  withdrawn.  Given  that 
sanction,  and  given  the  fact  that  it  operated  under  the 
auspices  of  the  unified  civil  system  of  the  Roman  Empire 
throughout  which  it  extended,  it  was  both  natural  and 
proper  that  the  exclusive  character  of  jurisdiction  should 
find  its  field  within  territorial  limits.  But  venerable  as 
this  policy  was — even  at  the  time  of  its  conciliary  enun- 
ciation— it  was  not  the  only  policy  possessed  of  Apostolic 
approval.  There  was  at  least  one  instance,  as  we  have 
seen,  in  which  jurisdiction  was  exercised  over  classes  of 
persons  irrespective  of  dwelling  place ; and  this  instance, 
due  to  a remarkable  tenacity  of  national  and  racial  cus- 
toms and  prejudices,  is  certainly  not  without  great  sig- 
nificance in  these  later  days,  and  particularly  in  a country 
like  this,  which  has  been  thrown  open  to  all  the  world, 
and  wherein  liberty  of  conscience  in  the  service  and 
worship  of  God,  and  in  the  choice  of  religious  associa- 
tions is  universal.  And  that  significance  is  that  in  this 
age  and  country  the  Churches  which  by  their  succession 
of  order  have  inherited  the  primitive  principles  of  juris- 
diction, should  recognize  in  each  other  the  liberty  to 
apply  these  principles  each  for  itself  over  those  persons 
who  have  been  in  the  providence  of  God  committed  to 
them.  This  is  said  not  with  a view  to  the  suggestion  of 
formal  recognition,  but  with  a view  to  the  promotion  of 
that  spirit  of  charity  which  would  be  more  effectual  than 
any  formal  acts,  though  in  time  it  might  lead  to  them. 
With  such  a liberty  each  might  do  its  own  work,  and  leave 
others  to  do  their  own  work ; each  standing  or  falling  to 
its  own  Master,  and  each  refraining  from  condemnation 
of  others’  methods  except  in  the  way  of  warning  to  its 


own  people.  In  such  a state  of  mutual  recognition  of 
the  right  of  each  over  its  own,  the  natural  tendency  would 
be  to  the  softening  of  the  asperity  of  such  assertion  of 
right  to  place  as  might  be  necessary,  and  to  a mutual 
toleration  which  would  open  a fair  field  for  that  appeal 
to  reason  and  the  moral  sense  which  only  can  lead  to  the 
willing  acceptance  of  truth. 

If  this  should  seem  visionary  I would  only  beg  that  it 
may  be  considered  that  it  is  but  a description  of  what  we 
are  already  to  some  extent  in  fact  doing,  though  grudg- 
ingly and,  as  it  were,  of  necessity,  and  perhaps  with  a 
scruple  of  conscience  that  we  are  departing  from  Catholic 
practice.  The  point  is  that  we  all  have  departed  from 
Catholic  practice  in  respect  of  ceasing  to  be  in  that  state 
of  unity  which  alone  gave  ground  for  the  rule  in  regard 
to  exclusive  right  to  territorial  jurisdiction.  Where  the 
Church  was  at  one  there  was  to  be  but  one  Church  in  a 
place,  and  he  who  intruded  against  the  Bishop  of  that 
place  intruded  upon  the  unity  of  the  Church.  But  unity 
being  not  an  existing  fact,  and  several  representatives  of 
the  original  Church  claiming  each  for  itself  the  original 
unity,  the  reason  of  the  rule  no  longer  exists  except  in 
each  one  for  its  own  use,  and  is  powerless  to  vivify  it  as 
against  others.  It  would  seem,  then,  that  each  should 
so  hold  its  own  right  as  not  to  impair  that  which  belongs 
to  another.  We  have  followed  the  rule  by  which  the 
Canons  applied  the  principles  of  jurisdiction;  and  in  ac- 
cordance with  that  rule  our  jurisdiction  is  territorial, 
and  under  original  conditions  of,  unity  would  include  all 
Christians  within  that  territory.  But  those  original  con- 
ditions having  vanished,  it  does  not  follow  that  in  holding 
our  own  under  that  territorial  rule  we  should  disregard 
all  claim  to  personal  jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  others.  We 
do  not  in  fact  so  hold,  even  with  regard  to  those  who 
have  what  seems  to  us  but  imperfect  mission  on  which 


ii6 


to  base  their  claim  of  jurisdiction  over  the  persons  com- 
mitted to  them.  Over  races  which  have  been  brought  up 
under  Roman  Bishops  or  under  Eastern  Bishops  we  rec- 
ognize the  right  of  those  Bishops  to  minister  in  this  coun- 
try; and  by  implication  we  recognize  their  right  to  per- 
sonal jurisdiction  over  all  those  who  of  their  free  will 
consort  with  them.  The  situation  exists.  We  live  and 
daily  act  in  it.  And  in  so  doing  it  seems  to  me  that  we 
recognize  that  it  is  not  so  much  the  Canonical  rules  which 
oblige  us,  as  the  principles  which  those  rules  applied 
under  circumstances  quite  different  from  ours.  If  the 
principles  were  by  Apostolic  wisdom  found  capable  of 
application  by  a different  rule;  and  if  the  circumstances 
of  the  Apostolic  application  were  analogous  to  those  in 
which  we  now  live,  it  would  seem  that  we  have  sufficient 
justification  for  recognizing  the  right  of  others  in  the 
exercise  of  the  personal  jurisdiction  which  has  Apostolic 
precedent,  even  though  they  come  in  the  Providential 
ordering  within  that  territorial  jurisdiction  in  respect  of 
which  we  have  followed  the  Canonical  rules  and  historic 
precedents  of  the  Church : for  surely,  as  has  been  wittily 
said,  ‘‘Jurisdiction  was  made  for  the  cure  of  souls;  and 
not  the  cure  of  souls  for  jurisdiction.” 

In  our  present  situation  it  is  impossible  but  that  offences 
should  come,  and  acts  be  done  which  seem  without  suf- 
ficient warrant  either  in  law  or  charity.  Cases  of  re- 
ordination for  instance  are  grievous  in  the  consciousness 
of  the  Church  whose  orders  are  ignored.  Yet  they  result 
from  the  conviction  of  the  Church  which  performs  them 
that  it  represents  the  unity  which  always  reserved  to 
itself  the  right  to  ignore  the  validity  of  acts  done  out  of 
that  unity.  In  such  and  all  other  grievances  we  have  but 
to  let  our  minds  be  known  with  brotherly  frankness,  and 
abide  the  wrong  with  that  patience  which  in  all  the  affairs 
of  life  we  have  to  exercise  amid  evils  which  seem  incap- 


able  of  redress.  Certain  it  is  that  such  vexatious  happen- 
ings are  less  likely  to  be  frequent  in  the  long  run  where 
the  hearts  of  men  are  permeated  with  the  charitable  spirit 
of  a mutual  toleration,  than  when  each  is  seeking  the  un- 
conditional subjugation  of  the  other;  and  nothing,  in  my 
judgment,  would  more  conduce  to  the  establishment  of 
such  a state  than  the  tempering  of  our  adherence  to  the 
literal  obedience  of  the  Canons,  with  an  infusion  of  the 
spirit  of  conformity  to  the  apostolic  example. 

The  precedent  of  personal  jurisdiction  furnished  by 
the  Apostles  was  no  doubt  exceptional,  and  in  the  times 
which  succeeded  there  was  no  need  to  follow  it,  and  it 
was  not  generally  followed.  But  the  spirit  of  it  has  been 
sometimes  caught  in  history,  and  the  significance  of  its 
possible  use  in  the  healing  of  schisms  in  a country 
wherein  the  ecclesiastical  estate  is  free  from  all  entan- 
glement with  the  civil,  and  whose  citizens  have  been 
gathered  out  of  the  Churches  of  all  nations,  he  would 
be  spiritually  blind  who  could  not  see.  And  the  value  of 
the  precedent  will  surely  be  recognized  if  ever  the  time 
should  come  when  all  Churches,  retaining  their  own  indi- 
vidualities and  pious  opinions,  can  occupy  the  really 
Catholic  ground  in  respect  of  the  essential  principles  of 
faith  and  order,  and  exact  nothing  else  as  requisite  to 
their  communion  with  each  other. 

Let  me  close  this  letter  with  the  quaint  account  which 
is  given  by  Bingham  in  his  Christian  Antiquities  of  an 
instance  which  seems  to  have  been  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Apostolic  precedent;  and  which,  from  its  Oriental  flavor 
and  associations,  may  not  be  unacceptable  to  you. 

'^Yet  it  must  be  observed  that  as  the  great  end  and 
design  of  this  rule  (that  two  Bishops  should  not  exercise 
their  office  in  one  city)  was  to  prevent  schism  and  to 
preserve  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church,  so,  on  the 
other  hand,  when  it  manifestly  appeared  that  the  allow- 


ii8 


ing  of  two  Bishops  in  one  city,  in  some  certain  circum- 
stances and  critical  junctures,  was  the  only  way  to  put 
an  end  to  some  long  and  inveterate  schism,  in  that  case 
there  were  some  Catholic  Bishops  who  were  willing  to 
take  a partner  into  their  throne,  and  share  the  Episcopal 
power  and  dignity  between  them.  Thus  Meletius,  Bishop 
of  Antioch,  made  the  proposal  to  Paulinus,  his  antagonist, 
who,  though  he  was  of  the  same  faith,  yet  kept  up  a 
Church  divided  in  communion  from  him.  I shall  relate 
the  proposal  in  the  words  of  Theodoret.  'Meletius,’  says 
he,  'the  meekest  of  men,  thus  friendly  and  mildly  ad- 
dressed himself  to  Paulinus:  "Forasmuch  as  the  Lord 
hath  committed  to  me  the  care  of  these  sheep,  and  thou 
hast  received  the  care  of  others,  and  all  the  sheep  agree 
in  one  common  faith,  let  us  join  our  flocks,  my  friends 
and  dispute  no  longer  about  primacy  and  government, 
but  let  us  feed  the  sheep  in  common,  and  bestow  a com- 
mon care  upon  them.  And  if  it  be  the  throne  that  creates 
the  dispute,  I will  try  to  take  away  this  cause  also.  We 
will  lay  the  Holy  Gospel  upon  the  seat,  and  then  each 
of  us  take  his  place  on  either  side  of  it.  And  if  I die 
first,  you  shall  take  the  government  of  the  flock  alone  ; 
but  if  it  be  your  fate  to  die  before  me,  then  I will  feed 
them  according  to  my  power.”  'Thus  spake  the  Divine 
Meletius,’  says  our  author,  'lovingly  and  meekly,  but 
Paulinus  would  not  acquiesce  nor  hearken  to  him.’  ” 

And  so,  with  rest  and  peace  to  the  Divine  Meletius,  and 
with  devout  thanks  for  his  good  example,  I bid  you 
farewell. 

Very  truly  yours, 

WM.  J.  SEABURY. 

The  Rev.  Ingram  N.  W.  Irvine,  D.D. 


V 


APPENDIX  IV. 


Copied  from  the  New  York  Tribune  of  June  2. 

SUGGESTIONS  LOOKING  TOWARD  A REUNION 

By  the  Hon.  N.  N.  De  Lodygensky,  Imperial  Russian 
Consul-General,  N.  Y. 


To  THE  Editor  of  The  Tribune: 

Sir:  Would  you  kindly  allow  the  undersigned  to  ad- 
dress, through  your  valuable  paper,  those  of  your  readers 
who  are  interested  in  the  vital  question  of  the  reunion  of 
Christendom,  and  to  offer  for  their  consideration  some 
brief  remarks  in  reference  to  one  special  side  of  this 
problem,  viz. : The  mutual  relations  between  two  branches 
of  the  Church  Catholic — the  Anglican  (Protestant  Episco- 
pal) and  the  Eastern  (Grseco-Russian). 

Students  of  the  inner  evolution  within  the  Anglican 
Church  are  cognizant  of  the  two  tendencies  pursued  by 
some  parts  of  this  communion — the  one,  the  trend,  since 
the  tractarian  movement  in  the  30’s  of  the  last  century, 
toward  traditional  Catholicism,  in  its  threefold  subdivi- 
sions: (a)  Rome  (Dr.  Newman),  (b)  pre-Henrician 
England  (Dr.  Pusey),  and  (c)  Eastern  Orthodoxy  (Dr. 
Palmer  and  Dr.  Overbeck,  in  England,  and  Dr.  Irvine,  in 
the  United  States),  and  the  other  the  trend  toward  indi- 
vidualism in  doctrine  and  interpretation,  quite  recently 
demonstrated  by  Dr.  Crapsey’s  case  and  the  rather  sym- 


120 


pathetic  attitude  of  a portion  of  both  the  secular  and  the 
religious  press  in  his  favor. 

The  continuance  of  this  parallel  inner  process  suggests 
the  following  supposition : Might  it  not  evoke  in  some  of 
the  Anglicans  the  feeling  that  there  is  now  an  oppor- 
tunity for  some  more  active  movement  toward  the  estab- 
lishment of  a better  understanding  between  themselves 
and  their  Eastern  brethren  ? 

With  such  an  aim  in  view  it  would  seem  necessary  to 
begin  by  clearing  out  of  the  way  the  two  most  important 
obstacles:  (i)  The  doctrinal  differences  between  the 
teaching  of  the  Anglican  and  that  of  the  Eastern  branches 
of  the  Church  Catholic;  and,  (2)  the  question  of  full 
conciliar  recognition  by  the  Eastern  Catholic  Church  of 
Anglican  orders. 

Representative  Anglican  theologians  should,  therefore, 
prepare  some  short  statements  of  both  subjects,  showing 
(a)  what  are  the  dogmatic  alterations  and  augmentations 
of  the  teaching  of  the  Eastern  Catholic  Church,  as  it  was 
before  the  deplorable  great  schism  between  Rome  and  the 
four  patriarchates  (Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Alexandria  and 
Constantinople),  in  the  eleventh  century — alterations  and 
augmentations  which  have  been  accepted  by  the  Church 
of  England  during  its  union  with  Rome,  and  inherited  by 
its  daughter,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  the 
United  States,  and  (b)  what  are  the  historical  irrefut- 
able proofs  of  the  validity  of  Anglican  orders. 

Such  statements  would  have  to  be  presented  for  their 
formal  consideration  to  the  four  patriarchs,  and  to  the 
heads  of  the  eight  autocephalous  orthodox  churches  of 
Russia,  Greece,  Cyprus,  Servia,  Rumania,  Montenegro, 
Austria  and  Hungaria. 

This  action  would  help  to  establish  doctrinal  identity 
and  interecclesiastical  federation,  with  conservation  of  in- 
dividual autonomy  of  both  sides,  Anglican  and  Eastern, 


I2I 


and  thus  would  bring  them  one  step  nearer  toward  the 
prayed  for  reunion,  according  to  Our  Blessed  Lord’s  own 
words:  '‘That  they  all  may  be  one.”  (St.  John  xvii.  21.) 

The  undersigned  begs  to  conclude  by  expressing  his 
hope  that  this  proposition  will  be  met  by  members  of  the 
Anglican  communion  not  as  an  unwelcome  intrusion  from 
the  side  of  a foreigner,  but  as  a friendly  suggestion  from 
a loving  Christian  brother. 

Very  respectfully, 

NICHOLAS  N.  DE  LODYGENSKY. 

Senior  warden  of  St.  Nicholas’  Orthodox  Cathedral  at 
New  York. 

New  York,  May  30,  1906. 


1 


The  Holy  Orthodox  Church 


The  Holy  Orthodox  Church  possesses  a Priesthood  of  unbroken  suc- 
cession from  Our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  Her  Liturgy  is  that 
of  St.  James  of  Jerusalem  abbreviated  by  SS.  Basil  and  Chrysostom.  Her 
Ceremonial  is  that  of  the  Ancient  Church,  though  well  adapted  to  modern 
times.  She  numbers  about  one  hundred  and  twenty-iive  millions  of  Chris- 
tians, who  are  under  the  four  Ancient  Patriarchates  of  the  East  and  the 
Holy  Synod  of  Russia.  In  the  United  States  besides  the  Russian,  Syria- 
Arabic  and  Servian  Clergy,  whose  names  may  be  found  in  the  subjoined 
list,  there  are  several  Greek  Priests,  who  are  under  the  Metropolitan  of 
Athens,  but  who,  so  far  as  Episcopal  Ministrations  are  concerned,  call  upon 
the  Orthodox  Archbishop  of  North  America. 

The  Holy  Orthodox  Church  recognizes  but  seven  General  Councils,  and 
while  holding  inviolately  the  Catholic  Faith  as  taught  down  to  the  close 
of  the  Seventh  General,  she  is  not  in  union  with  the  fifth  Patriarchate, 
namely,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

She  holds  out  a loving  hand  to  all  who  believe  the  Ancient  Faith, 
whether  in  the  East  or  West,  and  practice  it,  and  who  accept  the  Holy 
Scriptures  as  the  Word  of  God.  Her  continual  prayer  is  for  the  unity  of 
Christendom. 


The  Orthodox  Diocese  of  North  America  and  the  Aleutian  Islands 


CLERGY  AND  CHURCHES 

MOST  REV.  TIKHON,  D.D. 

Archbishop  of  North  America  and  Aleutian  Islands. 

Right  Rev.  Innocent,  Bishop  of  Alaska. 

Right  Rev.  Raphael,  Bishop  of  Brooklyn  and  Head  of  the  Syrian  Branch 
of  the  Orthodox  Church  in  America. 

Very  Rev.  Archimandrite  Sebastian  Dabovich,  Administrator  of  the 
Servian  Branch  of  the  Orthodox  Church  in  America. 

ECCLESIASTICAL  CONSISTORY. 

15  East  97th  Street,  New  York. 

Members. — Very  Rev.  Archpriest  Alexander  A.  Hotovitzky;  Rev.  B. 
Turkevich,  Secretary;  Rev.  P.  Popoff,  Treasurer;  Mr.  N.  Greevsky, 
Superintendent  of  the  Depository. 

RURAL  DEANS. 

Very  Rev.  John  Kochuroff,  Rural  Dean  of  Russian  Churches  in  Eastern 
States  of  America;  Rev.  Theo.  Pashkovsky,  Rural  Dean  of  Russian 
Churches  in  Western  States;  Rev.  M.  Skibinsky,  Dean  of  Churches 
in  Canada. 


1.  St.  Nicholas  Cathedral,  15  East  97th  St.,  New  York  City. — Very  Rev. 
A.  Hotovitzky,  Dean;  Rev.  E.  Zotikoff,  Rev.  I.  N.  W.  Irvine,  D.D.,  Rev, 
^annicky  Kiyko,  Rev.  A.  Kalneff  (Deacon),  Canons;  N.  T.  Greevsky, 
Precentor:  I.  Lachno,  Reader. 

The  Hours  for  Service:  Sundays,  Divine  Liturgy,  10  a.  m. ; 

Vespers  in  English,  7.30  p.  m.  ^ Saturdays — All-night  Vigil  7.30 
p.  m.  The  hours  for  other  services  are  announced  on  Sundays. 

2.  South  River,  N.  J. — Under  charge  of  the  Cathedral  Clergy. 


124 


3.  Passaic  (Garfield),  N.  J. — Three  Saints;  Rev.  P.  Popoff. 

4.  Bridgeport,  Conn. — Holy  Spirit’s  Church,  890  Hallet  St. ; Rev.  E. 
Klopotovsky;  J.  Gribenichenko,  Reader. 

5.  Ansonia,  Conn. — Three  Saints..  6 Lester  St.;  Rev.  Theo.  Buketoff, 
Rector;  Constantine  Buketoff,  Reader. 

6.  New  Britain,  Conn. — SS.  Cyril  and  Methodius,  280  Washington  St.; 
Rev.  Ptolomey  Timchenkoff,  Rector. 

7.  Yonkers,  N.  Y. — Holy  Trinity,  326  Ashburton  Ave. ; Rev.  B.  Turke- 
vich,  Rector;  G.  Cherepnin,  Reader. 

'8.  West  Troy  (Watervliet),  N.  Y. — St.  Basil  the  Great;  Rev.  J. 
Grigorieff;  Stephen  Fritz,  Reader. 

9.  ^ Philadelphia,  Pa. — St.  Andrews,  701  North  Fifth  St.;  Rev.  Con- 
stantine Seletzky. 

10.  Catasauqua,  Pa. — Holy  Trinity;  Rev.  Alex.  Nemolovsky,  Rector;  T. 
Moroz,  Reader. 

11.  Reading,  Pa. — St.  Basil  the  Great,  S.  Tarasar,  Reader. 

12.  McAdoo,  Pa. — St.  Mary’s. 

13.  Sheppton,  Pa. — St.  John  the  Baptist;  Rev.  V;  Roubinsky. 

14.  St.  Clair,  Pa. 

15.  Wilkes-Barre,  Pa. — Resurrection,  Main  St.;  Very  Rev.  Archpriest 
A.  G.  Toth;  M.  Perhach,  Reader. 

16.  Old  Forge,  Pa. — St.  Michael;  Rev.  L.  Vladyshevsky,  Rector;  J. 
Soroka,  Reader. 

17.  Scranton,  Pa. — SS.  Peter  and  Paul. 

18.  Mayfield,  Pa. — St.  John  the  Baptist;  Rev.  Arseny  Chahovtzoff;  P. 
Zaichenko,  Reader. 

19.  Bakie,  Pa. — St.  Mary’s  Chapel.  (See  Mayfield,  Pa.) 

20.  Simpson,  Pa. — St.  Basil  the  Great;  Rev.  A.  Boguslavsky;  N.  Le- 
vitzky, Reader. 

21.  Olyphant,  Pa. — St.  Nicholas;  Rev.  A.  Boguslavsky;  J.  Kolesnikoff, 
Reader. 


22.  South  Canaan,  Pa. — St  Tikhon  Monastery  and  Orphans’  Home; 
Rev.  Tikhon  Rostovsky,  Rev.  Ipaty. 

23.  Buffalo,  N.  Y. — SS.  Peter  and  Paul;  Rev.  A.  Veniaminoff. 

24.  Pittsburg,  Pa. — St.  Michael;  Rev.  P.  Kohanik,  Rector;  Rev.  B. 
Bolfun,  Deacon. 

25.  Allegheny  City,  Pa. — Rev.  W.  Alexandroff,  Rector;  N.  Gress, 
Reader. 

26.  Charleroi,  Pa. — St.  John  the  Baptist;  Rev.  J.  Sechin^ky;  J.  Lomakin, 
Reader. 

27.  Cleveland,  Ohio. — St.  Theodosius;  Rev.  J.  Kappanadze,  Rector; 
V.  Oranovsky,  Reader;  V.  Vasilieff,  Professor  of  the  Missionary  School. 

28.  Marblehead,  Ohio. — St.  Mary’s;  Rev.  Anthony  Doroschuk,  Rector. 

29.  Kelley  Island. — SS.  Peter  and  Paul.  (See  Marblehead.) 

30.  Phillipsburg,  Pa. — St  John  the  Baptist;  Rev.  Basil  Martysh;  M. 
Moroz,  Reader. 

31.  Osceola  Mills,  Pa. — St  Mary’s.  (Phillipsburg,  Pa.) 

32.  Patton,  Pa. — SS.  Peter  and  Paul;  Rev.  Joannicky  Kraskoff. 


125 


33-  Chicago,  111. — Holy  Trinity;  Rev.  J.  Kochuroff,  Rector;  J.  Kedrov- 
sky,  Deacon. 

34.  Streator,  111. — Three  Saints;  Rev.  M.  Potochny. 

35.  Madison,  111. — St.  Mary’s.  (See  Streator.) 

36.  Minneapolis,  Minn. — Rev.  C.  Popoff;  V.  Benzin,  A.  Kukulevsky, 
Professors  of  the  Seminary. 

37.  North  Prairi^  Minn. — (See  Minneapolis.) 

38.  Wisconsin,  Minn. — St.  Michael  (See  Minneapolis.) 

39.  Denver,  Colo. — Transfiguration;  Rev.  Gr.  Shutak. 

40.  Pueblo,  Colo. — St.  Michael;  Rev.  W.  Kalneff. 

41.  Calhan,  (^olo. — St.  Mary’s;  attached  to  Pueblo,  Colo. 

42.  Hartshorne,  Ind.  Ter. — SS.  Cyril  and  Methodius;  Rev.  Gregorius 
Varlashkin. 

43.  Galveston,  Tex. — SS.  Constantin  and  Helene;  Very  Rev.  Archiman- 
drite Theoclytos  Triandafilidis. 

44.  San  Francisco,  Cal. — Holy  Trinity;  Rev.  Theo.  Pashkovsky,  Rector; 
Rev.  N.  Metropolsky;  G.  Popoff,  Reader. 

45.  Seattle,  Wash. — St.  Spiridonius;  Rev.  M.  Andready;  J.  Tikhomiroff, 
Reader. 

46.  Wilkeson,  Wash. — Holy  Trinity;  attached  to  Seattle. 

47.  Portland,  Wash. — Attached  to  Seattle. 

CANADA. 

48.  Wostok,  Alberta. — Rev.  S.  'V'arhol. 

49.  Bukovina,  Alberta. — ;:3t.  Nicholas. 

50.  Kiselevo,  Alberta. — Holy  Virgin;  Rev.  Alexander  Antonieff. 

51.  Withford,  Alberta. — St.  Michael. 

52.  Shandro,  Alberta. — S.  Mary’s. 

53.  Beaver  Lake,  Alberta. — St.  James. 

54.  Beaver  Creek,  Alberta. — St.  Mary’s. 

55.  Edmonton,  Alberta. — St.  Barbara. 

56.  Rabbit  Hill,  Alberta — Ascension. 

57.  Conor,  Assiniboia. — St.  Mary’s. 

58.  Crooked  Lake. — Transfiguration. 

59.  Inscinger. — St.  Mary’s. 

60.  Salt  Coatl,  Assiniboia. — St.  Elias  the  Prophet. 

61.  Salt  Coats,  Assiniboia — SS.  Peter  and  Paul. 

62.  Stuartborn,  Manitoba. — St.  Demetrius  of  Solun. 

63.  Stuartburn,  Manitoba. — St.  Michael. 

64.  Winnipeg,  Manitoba. — Rev.  M.  Skibinsky,  Rector. 

(There  are  several  more  priests  coming  to  Canada.) 


126 


SYRO-ARABIAN  MISSION. 

65.  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. — St.  Nicholas  Cathedral;  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Raphael; 
Rev.  J.  Solomonidis;  Rev.  E.  Uphaish. 

66.  Worcester,  Mass. — St.  George;  J.  Hussan. 

67.  Lawrence,  Mass. — Very  Rev.  Archimandrite  Meletius. 

68.  Boston,  Mass. — Rev.  George  Maaluf. 

69.  Wilkes-Barre,  Pa. — Rev.  M.  Khurree. 

70.  Kearney,  Neb. — Rev.  N.  Yannie. 

71.  Montreal,  Canada. — Rev.  George  Makfuss. 

.SERVIAN  MISSION. 

72.  Chicago,  111. — Resurrection,  Very  Rev.  Archimandrite  Sebastian; 
Damian  Hierodeacon. 

\ 

73.  McKeesport,  Pa. — St.  Savva;  Rev.  Hieromonk  Nestor. 

74.  Wilmerding,  Pa. — St.  Nicholas;  Rev.  Philipp  Sredanovich. 

75.  Steelton,  Pa. — St.  Nicholas. 

76.  Jackson,  Cal. — St.  Savva;  Hieromonk  Nikhifor. 

77.  Pittsburg,  Pa. — Rev.  S.  Voevodich. 


ALASKA. 


7*8.  Sitka. — St.  Michael’s  Cathedral;  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop  Innocent;  Rev.  A. 
Kashevaroff;  Seraphim  Samuilovich,  Hieromonk;  Antony  Wasileff,  Hiero- 
deacon; L.  P.  Kashevaroff,  Teacher;  E.  T.  Schajahnuk,  Native  Teacher 
and  Interpreter. 

79.  Sitka. — Annunciation;  clergy  the  same. 

80.  Juneau. — St.  Nicholas;  Rev.  E.  Alexin;  W.  Deykar,  Reader. 

81.  Douglas  Island. — St.  Javva;  clergy  as  above. 


82.  Killisnoo. — St.  Andrew;  Rev.  I.  Soboleff;  Ch.  Sokoloff,  Reader. 


83.  Nutchek. — Transfiguration:  Hieromonk  Methodius; 

Reader. 


(Four  chapels  attached). 


A. 


Bolshakoff, 


84.  Kenay. — St.  Mary’s;  Rev.  I.  Bortnovsky;  N.  Thomin,  Reader. 
(Seven  chapels  attached). 


85.  Bielkovsk. — Resurrection;  Rev.  A.  Kedrovsky;  L.  Lestenkoff,  Reader. 
(Seven  chapels  attached). 


86.  Kodiak. — Resurrection;  Rev.  N.  Kashevaroff;  P.  Shadura,  Deacon; 
Miss  L.  Alexandroff,  Teacher. 

(Seven  chapels  attached). 

87.  Afognak. — St.  Mary’s;  Rev.  A.  Petelin;  T.  Sherotin,  Reader. 

(Eight  chapels  attached). 

88.  Unalaska. — Ascension;  Rev.  Alex.  Kedrovsky;  Rev.  N.  Rysseff; 
L.  Sivzoff,  Reader;  P.  Chubaroff,  Teacher 

(Eight  chapels  attached). 


127 


89.  St.  George’s  Island. — St.  George;  Rev.  P.  Kashevaroff;  Merkurieff, 
Reader. 

90.  St.  Paul. — St.  Paul;  Rev.  I.  Orloff;  Kochergin,  Reader.  One  chapel. 

91.  St.  Michael. — St.  Mary’s;  Rev.  P.  Orloff;  P.  Matrosoff,  Reader.  One 
Chapel. 


92.  Ikohmut. — Holy  Cross;  Rev.  Hieromonk  Amphylochius ; N.  Belkoff, 
Reader. 


(Three  chapels  attached). 


93.  Pavlovskoe. — St.  Sergius;  Rev.  N.  Amnan;  M.  Berezkin,  Reader. 
(Two  chapels  attached). 


94.  Nushahak. — SS.  Peter  and  Paul;  Rev.  W.  Kashevaroft;  J.  Kozloff^ 
Reader. 


(Twenty-one  chapels  attached). 


Total  in  Alaska:  17  churches  and  69  chapels. 

Church-schools  in  Alaska,  42.  Pupils,  790.  Orphanages,  5.  Orphans,  79. 
Communicants,  10,376;  viz.:  Russians,  64;  Slavonians,  501;  Halfbreeds, 
2,166;  Indians,  2,026;  Aleuts,  1,906;  Eskimos,  3,618;  others  95. 


